Independent and not affiliated with the FDA, MHRA, ISPE, PDA, or any agency. Get the appgoutham@madhadi.com
madhadi.comData Integrity & GxP Quality
Browse all topics → Articles Templates & Procedures Learning paths GlossaryScenariosToolsRegulatory ReferencesLearning PathsTopics About Start here
Checklist Plug-and-play starting point Quality Assurance

Checklist: SOP Drafting and Readiness

A pre-approval checklist an author or reviewer runs against a draft SOP to confirm it is accurate, followable, and inspection-ready before it is routed for signature, with a filled specimen and the findings it prevents.

Document type: Checklist

Read and copy the template below into your own quality system. It is a generic starting point for your own internal use, provided as is, with no warranty; see the Terms and License. Adopting it does not by itself create compliance.

This is a working checklist. An author runs it against a draft before routing for review, and an independent reviewer runs it again before approval. Mark each item Yes, No, or N/A, and record the evidence or location. Any No is a defect to fix before the SOP advances. A filled specimen follows so you can see how a completed checklist reads. This checklist does not replace your document control SOP; it is a readiness gate that sits on top of it.

Document control header

FieldEntry
SOP under review<<FILL: SOP-ID and title>>
Draft version<<FILL: e.g. 0.3 draft>>
Author / process owner<<FILL: role and name>>
Checklist completed by<<FILL: role and name>>
Date<<FILL: date>>
StageAuthor self-check / Independent review (circle one)

How to use this checklist

Run it twice. First the author runs it as a self-check before sending the draft for review; this catches the obvious gaps cheaply. Then an independent reviewer, ideally including someone who will actually use the SOP, runs it again. The most valuable single item is the dry run (section E): a real user performs or simulates the task with only the SOP in hand, and every hesitation is logged as a defect. Skipping the dry run is the most common reason an approved SOP turns out to be unfollowable.

A. Right instrument and altitude

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
A1The activity genuinely needs an SOP, not a policy, a work instruction, a protocol, or a one-time work order.<<FILL>>
A2The document is at one altitude, it is not trying to be policy, procedure, and work instruction at once.<<FILL>>
A3Where step-level mechanics for one machine or task are needed, they are in a subordinate work instruction, not bloating this SOP.<<FILL>>

B. Header, control, and framing sections

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
B1Header or footer carries document number, title, version, effective date, and “page x of y” on every page.<<FILL>>
B2Purpose states the outcome the procedure assures, it does not just restate the title.<<FILL>>
B3Scope states both what is covered and what is explicitly excluded, with what governs the exclusions.<<FILL>>
B4Responsibilities name roles, not individuals; every listed role appears in the steps.<<FILL>>
B5Every actor that appears in the steps is listed in responsibilities (no unnamed actors).<<FILL>>
B6Definitions cover the load-bearing terms and acronyms; no obvious terms over-defined, no critical term undefined.<<FILL>>
B7References list only documents actually used; no dead links to superseded documents.<<FILL>>
B8Materials and equipment section lets the user gather everything before starting (or states “None”).<<FILL>>
B9Safety and environmental controls are specific to the actual steps, not generic boilerplate.<<FILL>>

C. The procedure section (where SOPs live or die)

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
C1Each step is one action, in the active voice, with one named role as the actor.<<FILL>>
C2Every acceptance criterion (value, range, condition) is stated inside the step that needs it, not buried elsewhere.<<FILL>>
C3Every decision point is written as an explicit if/then with a defined path for each outcome.<<FILL>>
C4Every failure path is defined: what to record, when to stop, when to raise a deviation, and who to notify.<<FILL>>
C5Steps are numbered so they can be cited precisely (for example “repeat 5.3 to 5.6”).<<FILL>>
C6One term is used for one thing throughout; terminology is consistent with the forms and references.<<FILL>>
C7No vague qualifiers at critical steps (“periodically”, “as appropriate”, “sufficient”, “if necessary”).<<FILL>>
C8Detail is right-sized to the criticality and the trained competence of the user.<<FILL>>
C9Every recording action is tied to the time of performance (contemporaneous).<<FILL>>

D. Records and forms

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
D1Every form or template the SOP references exists under document control, with a version.<<FILL>>
D2The form fields capture exactly what the steps require (form and SOP designed together).<<FILL>>
D3The records section states what is generated, where it is stored, and how long it is retained.<<FILL>>
D4Records are designed to be attributable, legible, contemporaneous, original, accurate, complete, consistent, enduring, and available (ALCOA+).<<FILL>>

E. Usability dry run

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
E1A qualified but new user performed or simulated the task using only this SOP and the referenced forms.<<FILL>>
E2Every place the user hesitated, asked a question, or reached for tribal knowledge was logged as a defect.<<FILL>>
E3All dry-run defects are resolved in the draft (or dispositioned with a reason).<<FILL>>
E4Reading the procedure aloud as if instructing someone adds no missing words; any added word was inserted as a step.<<FILL>>

F. Regulatory and lifecycle readiness

#CheckYes / No / N/AEvidence or note
F1The regulation or standard that mandates this activity is identified and the procedure satisfies it.<<FILL>>
F2Each cited regulation, ICH code, USP chapter, or annex was confirmed against its current published version.<<FILL>>
F3Effective date is aligned with training completion (no in-force-but-untrained window, no following a draft).<<FILL>>
F4The change reason and a real revision history entry are prepared (not “updated for clarity”).<<FILL>>
F5The approval routing (author, technical reviewer or SME, QA, management where needed) is set.<<FILL>>

Disposition

FieldEntry
Total Yes<<FILL>>
Open defects (any No)<<FILL: count, with item numbers>>
DecisionReady to route / Return to author (circle one)
Completed by (name, signature, date)<<FILL>>

Any No must be closed or formally dispositioned before the SOP is routed for approval.


Filled specimen

The following shows the checklist completed for an example draft, a procedure for receiving and quarantining incoming raw material samples. The company, IDs, and notes are illustrative. Only the items that drove a finding are shown filled; the rest were marked Yes.

FieldEntry
SOP under reviewSOP-QC-014, Receipt and Quarantine of Incoming Raw Material Samples
Draft version1.8 draft
Author / process ownerQC Supervisor, A. Rao
Checklist completed byQC Reviewer, M. Diaz (independent)
Date22 June 2026
StageIndependent review
#CheckResultEvidence or note
C2Acceptance criterion in the stepNoStep 8.4 said “measure the temperature” with no range. Added “acceptance range 2 C to 8 C.”
C4Failure path definedNoStep 8.5 had no out-of-range path. Added “stop, retain in quarantine cooler, initiate deviation per SOP-QA-021, notify supervisor and QA.”
D1Forms under document controlNoThe Sample Receipt Log circulated as an unversioned spreadsheet. Brought under control as SOP-QC-014-F1 v1.0.
E1Dry run performedYesNew analyst ran the task with the draft only; two hesitations logged (steps 8.4 and 8.5), both fixed above.

Disposition: 3 open defects at first pass, all closed in version 1.9 draft. Decision, ready to route. Completed by M. Diaz, signed, 22 June 2026.

In this specimen the checklist caught a missing acceptance range, an undefined failure path, and an uncontrolled form, the three defects most likely to become inspection findings, and the dry run is what surfaced two of them. That is the gate working as intended.

Common inspection findings this checklist prevents

  • “Established procedures were not followed”, where the deeper cause was that the procedure was not followable.
  • Steps with no defined failure path, where operators improvised and a deviation resulted.
  • Critical steps with missing acceptance criteria, making the procedure unauditable.
  • Forms referenced by an SOP that are uncontrolled, unversioned, or circulating as spreadsheets.
  • Records not captured contemporaneously because the SOP never required it at the point of action.
  • Effective date ahead of training, or staff following an unapproved draft.
  • Revision history that cannot reconstruct what the procedure required at a past date.

How to adapt this checklist

  1. Add or remove rows so the checklist matches your own document control SOP’s required sections and numbering.
  2. Keep the dry run (section E) as a mandatory gate; it is the single highest-value item and the one most often skipped.
  3. Make a No on any item a hard block to routing, or define which items are advisory versus blocking for your system.
  4. Attach the completed checklist to the change control record so the readiness evidence travels with the SOP.
  5. Confirm the regulatory references in any SOP you check against their current published versions before approval.
Use madhadi.com as an app Full screen, works offline, one tap from your home screen.