EU MDR · UKCA · FDA · ISO 13485
AI-native regulatory consulting for medtech.
With focus on SaMD, SiMD, and AI-enabled devices.
We pair hands-on regulatory experience with technical and AI expertise, so the hard judgement gets expert attention and the document work goes faster.
What we do
Regulatory consulting for software and AI medical devices, across the EU, Great Britain and the US.
Hands-on regulatory work, not just advice.
We write the content and structure your technical files ourselves. Senior, and scoped to where you are now.
Objective gap analysis
An independent read of where you stand against MDR, ISO 13485 and the markets you are targeting, with the gaps ranked by what matters. The place to start.
SaMD classification and regulatory strategy
A defensible classification and a clear route to market in each jurisdiction, before you commit to building it.
ISO 13485 quality management system
An ISO 13485 quality system sized to your stage and shaped to how your team actually works, not a binder that fails its first audit. One system, aligned to the FDA's QMSR where the US is on your roadmap.
MDR technical documentation (Annex II and III)
The full technical file a Notified Body or FDA reviewer expects, pre-market and post-market, shaped to fit how your team already builds.
Clinical evaluation for software devices
A realistic evidence plan: what you need, what you can defer, and which studies you can avoid.
Post-market surveillance and vigilance
Surveillance, incident tracking and periodic reporting, set up once rather than rebuilt each year.
Pre-market to post-market. One senior team.
Who we serve
SaMD, SiMD, and AI-enabled devices.
Software that is the device, software inside the device, and the AI models inside them. All three are our core work.
Software as a medical device (SaMD)
Standalone software performing a medical function on its own: diagnosis, triage, monitoring, treatment planning. Classified under MDR Rule 11.
Software in a medical device (SiMD)
An algorithm embedded in hardware, where the device is classified as a whole. The model is the novelty; the hardware delivers it.
AI and ML-enabled devices
Trained models in either shape, where validation, data quality, drift, and the EU AI Act sit on top of MDR.
If the core of your device is an algorithm, you are in scope.
Markets
EU, Great Britain and the US, planned as one route.
Each market asks different questions of the same device, and each route needs its own plan. We sequence them together rather than starting again for each one.
European Union
EU MDR
Our core. Classification, technical documentation, clinical evaluation and post-market surveillance.
Great Britain
UKCA
UKCA marking, or Great Britain access on the strength of your CE mark, whichever fits your device and timeline.
United States
FDA
510(k), De Novo or PMA, with your ISO 13485 system aligned to the FDA's QMSR.
AI-enabled devices
EU AI Act
Readiness assessment, mapped onto the MDR file and QMS you already have.
One quality system and one evidence base, sequenced in the order your roadmap needs.
Why Artifakt
SaMD and AI device specialists, not generalist consultants.
We focus on the detail.
We go deep, not wide
We take on a small number of partners and stay with them, rather than spreading thin across many clients and letting quality slip.
Specialists only
Software and AI medical devices are all we do. We understand the product and the regulation at the same time.
We work to your timeline
Paced to your roadmap and your raise, clearing the next milestone instead of becoming the bottleneck.
Every output peer-reviewed
A second specialist checks the work before it reaches you.
Where we're going
Consulting today, with Artifakt Platform built in parallel.
Every engagement is hands-on regulatory work. Alongside it we are building Artifakt Platform, shaped by what that work teaches us. It is in development, and our consulting does not depend on it.
The Problem
Compliance is fragmented, static, and manual.
01
Fragmented
Compliance lives across binders, spreadsheets, and disconnected QMS tools that don't speak to each other.
02
Static
Technical documentation is treated as a one-time submission. Regulation isn't.
03
Manual
Every regulatory update means human chasing across teams, suppliers, and notified bodies.
The Thesis
Regulation is continuous. Compliance should be too.
In development
Artifakt Platform.
We are building Artifakt Platform, an AI platform to get software and AI medical devices from development to safe deployment faster, so new technology reaches clinicians and patients sooner.
One record per device
Designed to hold one structured, traceable record for each device, so every document is drawn from the same source.
AI agents, expert review
Designed to use AI agents to generate compliance evidence across UK MDR, EU MDR, FDA and the EU AI Act, with a regulatory expert reviewing the output.
Through to deployment
Designed to carry that evidence forward into deployment and post-market monitoring.
For manufacturers of software and AI medical devices. Built on our hands-on regulatory delivery.
Live
ARTIFAKT VIGILANCE.
Our live, free tool for EU MDR post-market work. One query runs across eight public safety and literature sources, then drafts the literature and vigilance sections of your PSUR, PMCF evaluation report, SSCP or literature review, following the MDCG and MEDDEV guidance. You review, edit and own the final document.
Four report templates, eight public sources, one workspace.
PSUR (MDCG 2022-21) · PMCF evaluation report (MDCG 2020-8) · SSCP (MDCG 2019-9 rev.1) · PRISMA 2020 / MEDDEV 2.7/1 rev.4 literature review
FDA MAUDE · FDA Recalls · BfArM · MHRA · Health Canada · PubMed · Europe PMC · ClinicalTrials.gov
Try Vigilance, freeCommon questions
Questions we get asked first.
How is software as a medical device classified under EU MDR Annex VIII?
Classification follows the intended purpose, and for software the decisive provision is usually Rule 11. Software that provides information used to take diagnostic or therapeutic decisions is Class IIa, and it moves to Class IIb where such a decision could cause serious deterioration of health or a surgical intervention, or to Class III where it could cause death or an irreversible deterioration. Software intended to monitor physiological processes is Class IIa, or Class IIb where variations could result in immediate danger. Software that drives or influences the use of another device falls in the same class as that device; where it also achieves a medical purpose of its own, it is classified on that purpose, but not lower than the device's class. Class I remains only for software with no diagnostic, therapeutic or monitoring role, which is a narrower group than most teams assume.
Does a Class IIa medical device need a Notified Body?
Yes. Self certification stops at Class I. Every Class IIa device needs a Notified Body, which assesses your quality management system and samples the technical documentation across the device categories you place on the market. Three Class I subgroups also need a Notified Body, but only for one specific aspect: sterile devices for the sterility, measuring devices for the metrological function, and reusable surgical instruments for reuse. In practice the binding constraint is capacity, not eligibility, so approach a Notified Body well before you plan to submit.
How does the EU AI Act interact with the MDR?
They stack rather than replace one another. If an AI enabled device already requires a Notified Body under the MDR, it is generally treated as high risk under the AI Act, so AI Act duties such as data governance, logging, transparency, human oversight, accuracy and robustness apply on top of your MDR obligations. The intent is that this is assessed through the existing medical device conformity assessment rather than a second parallel audit. The timing changed in July 2026: the Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, moved the high risk obligations for AI embedded in regulated products, which includes medical devices, to 2 August 2028, and moved standalone Annex III systems to 2 December 2027. The prohibitions and the general purpose AI rules already apply. The practical consequence is that most of the work should extend your existing QMS, risk management file and post market plan instead of creating a separate AI compliance system.
What clinical evidence does a Clinical Evaluation Report need?
Enough clinical data to show the device achieves its intended purpose, meets the relevant general safety and performance requirements, and that its benefits outweigh its risks in normal use. That means a clinical evaluation plan written before the search, a systematic and reproducible literature search with documented appraisal of what it returned, and then either your own clinical investigation data or an equivalence claim that is technically, biologically and clinically justified and backed by contractual access to the equivalent device's technical documentation. The conclusion must tie back to the risk management file, and it cannot be a one off: post market clinical follow up feeds new data into the CER on a defined cycle. Article 61 and Annex XIV are the legal basis, and MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev 4 is still the method most Notified Bodies expect to see.
UKCA or CE marking: what applies in Great Britain?
They are separate routes with separate infrastructure, and for most manufacturers a CE mark remains the practical route into Great Britain today. The MHRA accepts devices certified under the EU MDR or IVDR until 30 June 2030, and devices still certified under the older MDD or AIMDD until the sooner of certificate expiry or 30 June 2028. UKCA requires a UK Approved Body rather than an EU Notified Body, though Class I devices that are neither sterile nor measuring can self certify. Whichever mark you use, a manufacturer not established in the UK needs a UK Responsible Person to place devices on the Great Britain market. Northern Ireland continues to follow EU rules, which is why the UKNI mark exists for devices certified by a UK body. The MHRA consulted in early 2026 on recognising CE marked MDR and IVDR devices indefinitely and has not published an outcome, so confirm the current position before you build a plan around these dates.
Start here
Start with a gap analysis.
A clear, honest read on where you stand against MDR, ISO 13485 and the markets you are targeting, and a low-commitment way to see how we work. From there, we go as deep as you need.