Formal documented reviews at defined stages with cross-functional attendees and recorded findings — 820.30(e) structure preserved.
The explicit independent-reviewer mandate is gone — not required under the QMSR (preamble Comment 46); follow-up action status now explicitly required.
Systematic reviews at planned stages with recorded problems, actions, and closure — plus adherence to whatever reviewer roster your own procedures commit to.
Maps to
Pre-QMSR Part 820: §820.30(e) Design review.
ISO 13485: §7.3.5 Design and development review
FDA QMSR (2026): §820.10 (incorporates ISO 13485 § 7.3.5)
ISO 14971: §9 Risk management review
Requirement text
At suitable stages, systematic reviews of design and development shall be performed to evaluate the ability of results to meet requirements, identify problems, and propose necessary actions. Participants shall include representatives of functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed, as well as other specialist personnel.
Why this clause exists
Design reviews exist to surface problems before they are embedded in hardware, validated processes, or regulatory submissions — where they become exponentially more expensive to correct. The failure mode that the requirement guards against is insular design: a team deeply invested in its own work tends toward optimism about the adequacy of its outputs. An independent reviewer, by contrast, has both the standing and the mandate to challenge assumptions that the team has treated as settled. The QMSR does not carry forward the former §820.30(e) independent-reviewer mandate — FDA's preamble (Response to Comment 46, 89 FR 7511) confirms the final rule 'does not include the explicit requirement' and that manufacturers 'may choose which individual(s) to include,' while noting 'the important contribution of independent review to the design and development process.' Audit experience consistently shows that design reviews conducted without substantive outside perspective become confirmation exercises: attendees review each other's work, action items are sparse, and obvious problems are missed. When field failures traceable to design flaws occur, FDA inspectors regularly find that internal design reviews identified the same problem and either closed it without resolution or never opened an action item at all.
What changed
"Each manufacturer shall establish and maintain procedures to ensure that formal documented reviews of the design results are planned and conducted at appropriate stages of the device's design development. The procedures shall ensure that participants at each design review include representatives of all functions concerned with the design stage being reviewed and an individual(s) who does not have direct responsibility for the design stage being reviewed, as well as any specialists needed. The results of a design review, including identification of the design, the date, and the individual(s) performing the review, shall be documented in the design history file (the DHF)."
"At suitable stages, systematic reviews of design and development shall be performed in accordance with planned and documented arrangements to: a) evaluate the ability of the results of design and development to meet requirements; b) identify and propose necessary actions. Participants in such reviews shall include representatives of functions concerned with the design and development stage being reviewed, as well as other specialist personnel. Records of the results of the reviews and any necessary actions shall be maintained and include the identification of the design under review, the participants involved and the date of the review (see 4.2.5)."
Δ Drops the explicit requirement for an independent reviewer with no direct design responsibility; records must now capture necessary actions, not just results.
Common gaps (what we see in audits)
- Independent reviewer dropped without a deliberate decision — ISO 13485 7.3.5 does not require an independent reviewer, and FDA confirmed the QMSR does not either (preamble Comment 46) — while also noting 'the important contribution of independent review.' Companies transitioning from Part 820's explicit §820.30(e) mandate sometimes drop the independent reviewer without deciding, on the record, how their review roster preserves a challenge function; procedures that still cite §820.30(e) as the basis are also stale.
- Design review records lack problem identification and proposed actions — ISO 13485 7.3.5 requires that review records include identification of problems and proposed actions. Many legacy design review meeting minutes capture attendees, agenda, and decisions but do not systematically document identified problems, proposed actions, responsible parties, and follow-up status.
- Reviews not conducted at stages defined in the design plan — ISO 13485 7.3.5 requires reviews 'at suitable stages, in accordance with planned and documented arrangements.' Some companies conduct ad hoc design reviews rather than reviews formally linked to the stages defined in their design and development plan per 7.3.2.
- Missing cross-functional representation at reviews — ISO 13485 7.3.5 requires participants to include 'representatives of functions concerned with the design and development stage(s) being reviewed.' Some companies conduct design reviews with only engineering participants, without representation from quality, regulatory, manufacturing, or clinical functions.
Related clauses
Join the waitlist to check your documents against this clause →