TENVIA · EVALUATION WORKSHEET · 1 OCTOBER 2026
One protocol question.
A comparison your team can assess.
Blank planning worksheet. Complete it with your team during an agreed evaluation. This is not a product export, validated assessment, contractual offer or completed customer result.
Use non-confidential descriptions. Agree the evaluated release, access, dates, permitted inputs, outputs, fees and responsibilities before introducing study material. This page does not collect or submit information.
1. Define the scope
| Study question / review task | |
|---|---|
| Release and configuration assessed | |
| Owner, writer and specialist roles | |
| Inputs, permitted data and source coverage | |
| Dates, preparation effort and review sessions | |
| Fees, included users and support arrangements | |
| Required outputs, handover and exit |
2. Agree success before testing
Use the same task and quality criteria for the current process and the evaluated workflow. Set your own acceptance criteria with the responsible specialists. Record training and preparation effort separately.
| Measure | Acceptance criterion | Current process | Evaluation | Evidence / limitations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Source relevance and support for findings | ||||
| Relevant issues identified / missed | ||||
| Incorrect or unnecessary flags | ||||
| Historical version lineage, amendment rationale and missing coverage | ||||
| Time to locate a role-relevant decision | ||||
| Preflight checked scope, attributable findings and unknowns | ||||
| Site/participant review relevance and access boundaries | ||||
| Required-review coverage and handling of disagreement | ||||
| Burden calculation inputs, units and unknowns | ||||
| Visit and technology burden assumptions / missing inputs | ||||
| Amendment impact, site applicability and role briefing gaps | ||||
| Review invalidation after a material change | ||||
| Time preparing the review | ||||
| Time reviewing and resolving comments | ||||
| Ability to understand why the decision was made | ||||
| Completeness and usability of outputs | ||||
| Preparation / training effort |
3. Record the decision
| Proceed / extend / stop, and why | |
|---|---|
| Open product, clinical, security or quality questions | |
| Responsible reviewer and review date | |
| Handover, access removal and data return/deletion | |
| Next action, owner and agreed date |
Any observed benefit applies to the task, sample and release assessed. A small evaluation does not prove clinical suitability, accuracy across other tasks, regulatory acceptance or future savings.
Review the public document availability list · Read the evaluation plan