The original request
“Plan a study with 12 sites and 240 participants. CRO to provide monitoring and data management.”
Sponsor brief.txt · Paragraph 1
MARGIN PROTECTION · WORKING PROTOTYPE
The brief changed.
Did the budget?
Review scope changes and budget discrepancies before you submit your CRO proposal. Keep the source, the question and the reviewer’s decision together.
No sign-up to explore. No client documents needed.
ONE CHANGE. THREE DOCUMENTS.
12 sites became 18.
The budget still says 12.
These invented source excerpts demonstrate a review. They are not customer documents or measured savings.
The revised instruction
“Amendment 2 replaces the site count with 18 sites. Enrollment remains 240 participants.”
Amendment.txt · Paragraph 1
The amount being priced
- Site startup quantity
- 12
- Unit cost
- $4,000
- Stated total
- $44,000
Budget.csv · Sheet Budget · Row 2
Which site count should the budget use?
The amendment says 18; the budget prices 12. Confirm the applicable scope and whether startup effort needs repricing.
The row total needs an explanation.
12 × $4,000 = $48,000. The stated total is $44,000: a $4,000 difference. Check for a documented discount or adjustment before changing the total.
Source matches show where the words occur. The reviewer confirms their meaning and the final action.
A REVIEW YOU CAN REOPEN
From loose documents to a clear handover.
Evidence-linked flags
Open the source passage or budget row behind a question. Keep observations separate from reviewer conclusions.
Saved decisions
Record the reviewer’s response and reason. Save a private packet and reopen the work with its analysis history.
A usable review pack
Export the questions, source locations and notes to Markdown or CSV. Continue the review in your existing workflow.
WORKING PROTOTYPE · SEEKING DESIGN PARTNERS
Help evaluate the review process.
This example is part of CRO Margin Protection. We are testing amendment, budget and contract review with practitioners. It is not currently offered as a purchasable SaaS product.
Describe your normal workflow first. We agree evaluation scope, access and data handling before any private documents are shared.
Explore the design partner process ↗START SMALL
Does this look like your review process?
Tell us which comparison takes the most effort. A few lines are enough. We can begin with the example above; please don’t send confidential documents or patient information with your first message.
orion.biotech.ai@gmail.com ↗Written support in English. Design-partner conversations create no payment or subscription. Private workspace access follows an agreed scope and invitation.
What is automated today?
Fixed text and arithmetic rules check selected topics, differing site/participant counts and supported budget tables. Paid AI model calls are off. The checks do not provide exhaustive interpretation of a protocol or proposal.
How will we judge whether the evaluation helped?
Compare the time your team spends using its normal method with the assisted review, count useful findings and false alarms, and check whether you would use the output on another revision. Any claimed benefit must come from your observed results.
What documents can we use?
Only documents you are authorized to process, redacted and without patient data. Original files are read in your browser; explicit saving uploads extracted text to the invited private account. Scanned PDFs, images and unsupported table formats may need a text excerpt or a simpler worksheet.
Is this a clinical, legal or final pricing approval?
No. It prepares a review queue with source evidence. Your qualified team decides the applicable scope, clinical meaning, price and final approval.