|
Teams often endlessly add to reg submission documents what they call “relevant” content to feel complete. But keep mind, regulatory reviewers need “important” content to make decisions. There is a clear distinction between important and relevant. This mismatch drives reading friction, reviewer questions, and avoidable misunderstanding.
I want to define for you how I distinguish important versus relevant, then explain why the distinction matters. Relevant information Relevant information has a logical connection to the topic. Relevant content may be accurate, helpful, and necessary somewhere in the dossier. Common forms of relevant content include:
Relevant content answers: “Does this relate?” Important information Important information changes, supports, or constrains a regulatory decision. Important content earns priority because the reader must act on it. Important content usually does at least one of these jobs:
Important content answers: “So what for the decision?” A working rule helps teams move faster:
Why the distinction matters in real regulatory review Regulatory reviewers read Module 2 to decide, not to accumulate information Module 2 supports fast, selective decision-making. A reviewer navigates toward decision points, not toward completeness. When sponsors treat relevant as important, reviewers must do some triage. That workload shift creates friction and delays. Relevant overload hides the message you most need the reader to see Dense, undifferentiated text encourages skimming. Skimming changes what a reviewer notices. Further, skimming reduces cognitive recall: readers do not remember what they read. A buried bottom line often becomes a missed bottom line. A missed bottom line becomes a question, then a RFI. Interpretive space becomes sponsor risk Ambiguity invites inference. Inference becomes a working story inside the regulatory review team as they backfill interpretive gaps. A sponsor then spends precious time and intellectual capital rebutting the story. A better document prevents that story from forming. Trust drops when prioritization drops A regulatory reviewer who must hunt for meaning may assume weak reasoning. I suggest a reviewer who must assemble the argument may assume instability in the thinking of the sponsor. This is the 3rd level of information design: Affective. Confidence erodes when the document does not lead the reader tot he "So what?" Additionally, decision time rises when confidence drops. Teams lose time debating sentences instead of decisions Teams often defend paragraphs that they argue are “relevant.” When in turn, the paragraphs are just “frosting on the cake". The reality is teams should align on the regulatory decision questions, rank them, and then construct cogent responses. Prioritization is governance. A shared prioritization method reduces rewrite churn. A practical method: The Decision Test Use this test on any paragraph, table callout, or subsection. The test works in Module 5 and Module 2. Ask 5 questions:
When removal changes little or nothing for the regulatory reader, then relevance exists but without importance. That content then should be subordinated, in a table, in an appendix, or in Module 5. I keep arguing to the teams that I work with: “you gotta stop putting background (relevant information) in the foreground where ONLY important should reside.” To this day I have people tell me they always remember my analogy of treating documents like real estate: “never build cheap nice-to-know information” into your “high rent” districts of the document. I argue that a team should treat the decision test as a permission slip to move text. A team may also treat the test as a permission slip to delete text. A second method: The Section Job Rule Importance is not universal. Importance depends on the job of the section. A simple prompt helps: “What must a reviewer understand after reading this section?” Section purpose determines what deserves top position. Section purpose also determines what should move downstream. In an efficacy conclusions section, baseline detail is often supporting. The bottom line should lead. In generalizability, baseline imbalances may become decision-driving. Those details may become important. Patterns that signal “relevant pretending to be important” Watch for these signals during authoring and reviewing:
These patterns do not mean the content is wrong. These patterns mean the content is poorly ranked. Remember information design is driver of reader understanding. Where relevant content should go Relevant content still matters. Relevant content should not compete with decision-driving messages. Tables for breadth, text for meaning Put breadth in tables.
Appendices for completeness Appendices protect readability in core sections. Appendices also preserve traceability for audits and reviewers. A reviewer may access detail when needed. A reviewer should not be forced to wade through detail. Cross-references to Module 5 for depth Module 2 should guide and interpret. Module 5 should provide underlying evidence detail. A crisp reference often beats a long restatement. Restatement increases bulk without improving decisions. Progressive disclosure within a section Lead with the conclusion.
This order respects how reviewers navigate and reduces misinterpretation. Closing thought Regulatory readers do not need more facts. Regulatory readers need ranked facts that point to decisions.
Sponsors who master the distinction write less, but communicate more. Sponsors who master the distinction also reduce avoidable regulatory inquiry.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorGregory Cuppan is the Managing Principal of McCulley/Cuppan Inc., a group he co-founded. Mr. Cuppan has spent 30+ years working in the life sciences with 20+ years providing consulting and training services to pharmaceutical and medical device companies and other life science enterprises. 
Archives
December 2025
Categories |
RSS Feed
Services |
Company |
|
