When FDA published its draft guidance on AI in drug development in January 2025, many regulatory teams assumed it applied broadly to all AI-assisted document work. It does not. The guidance explicitly excludes AI used for "drafting or writing a regulatory submission" when that drafting does not itself affect patient safety, drug quality, or study reliability. The scope covers AI models that produce information or data to support regulatory decisions about safety, effectiveness, or quality, such as AI that stratifies patients for safety monitoring or performs automated quality assessments. For in-scope AI, FDA recommends a seven-step credibility framework including defining context of use, assessing model risk, and documenting credibility evidence. ICH E6(R3), effective in 2025, reinforces that sponsors retain ultimate responsibility for AI-generated content and must maintain data governance and computerized system controls proportionate to risk. Part 11 applies when AI tools create regulated records, though it predates modern AI and does not address LLMs directly. The FDA and EMA's January 2026 joint principles emphasize that AI does not substitute for human accountability.
FDA's AI Credibility Framework: What It Actually Covers…
Regulatory WritingFDA AI regulatory documentationICH E6(R3) AI documentation
FDA's AI Credibility Framework: What It Actually Covers for Documentation Teams
The January 2025 draft guidance is more targeted than many believe, and explicitly excludes routine document drafting from its scope.
GCP Revision
ICH E6(R3) FinalizedJanuary 2025
FDA Pilot
Comment Period Extended ToJune 29, 2026
Key Takeaway
AI tools that draft regulatory documents are outside the January 2025 credibility framework's scope unless they produce new information affecting safety, effectiveness, or quality decisions. Sponsors still need human oversight, version control, and GxP compliance for all