Channel-Specific Checklist Templates— Verifying product monographs, web, patient materials, and slides by their governing rules and channel-specific risks ── different media trigger different regulations

01Why split checklists by channel

The most common rework in contract production comes from one cause: an "everything checklist" that ignores how the medium behaves. The detailed citation columns built for a product monograph become noise when applied to a short-form ad. Run a patient leaflet through that same generic list and you miss the channel-specific risk that defines it — how easily a lay reader can be misled.

Seen from the regulatory side, each medium has a different layer that bites hardest. A product monograph is governed in practice by the JPMA creation guide as a format standard. A healthcare-professional website foregrounds the recording and monitoring duties of the Sales Information Provision Guidelines (MSA-G). Patient-facing materials center on Article 68 of the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act (ban on advertising unapproved drugs) and the lay-audience care provisions of the fair advertising standards. One sheet for all of it blurs which layer you are actually inspecting.

The templates here are a derivative of the four-layer framework set out in Issue 3: The Regulatory Map (Act, fair ad standards, MSA-G, JPMA) on the vertical axis, with the medium on the horizontal. If the regulatory map answers "which rules exist," this issue answers "which ones apply to this medium."

02Four channel types and their governing rules

Contract production handles dozens of material types, but bundled by how the rules apply they converge into four types. Fix this mapping at the start of every project.

A single project routinely spans multiple types. If a product site contains a patient page, apply both the B and C columns. In practice, assign types not per material but per page or part.

03Template A: Monograph checklist

This is the domain where the creation guide governs even the format. Citation accuracy and source disclosure sit at the center of quality. Translate each provision of the 07 JPMA creation guide into columns a producer can apply mechanically.

04Template B: HCP web checklist

The web differs decisively from print: not just "the wording on a page" but the navigation path, link destinations, access restriction, and update management fall inside the review scope. The recording and monitoring duties of 04 MSA-G apply.

B-2 and B-3 simply do not exist for print. Web review often fixes on "the wording the moment it appears on screen" and overlooks the click-path before it and the link destination after it. Fix full click-path verification into the SOP.

05Template C: Patient-facing checklist

Highest misleading risk, and Article 68 (ban on advertising unapproved drugs) comes to the front. For disease awareness, "not evoking a specific product" is the lifeline, and the lay-audience care of the fair ad standards applies in parallel. Mind the article numbers: unapproved-drug advertising is §68, exaggerated advertising is §66.

06Template D: Presentation slide checklist

Slides carry a particular difficulty: "oral support is assumed." The excuse that "what the slide omits, the speaker fills in" does not hold well — once it survives as a material, review it as a self-contained expression on its own.

D-1's "judged with notes hidden" works in practice. Extract only the slide-face text, suppress the presenter notes, and read it — does it still stay within the approved scope and avoid misleading? Omissions premised on oral support become a risk once the material circulates alone after the event.

07Bundling the matrix into one SOP

Managing four templates separately leaves you hesitating at project start over which to use. In practice, fold "medium classification → template selection → merge of common + specific columns" into a single SOP.

1. Classify the medium: sort the material into A–D per page or part (multiple types allowed).
2. Apply common columns: first apply what's shared across all media (approval match, safety balance, source disclosure).
3. Add specific columns: append per-type risks (A=citation alteration / B=navigation / C=product recall / D=oral dependence).
4. Link to rules: state the basis article/rule for each item (§66/§68/creation guide/MSA-G).
5. Record the verdict: keep OK/NG/needs-fix with reviewer and date (traceability is covered in Issue 10: Traceability, in preparation).

With this merge approach the common columns are maintained in one place, and only the specific columns are swapped per medium. When a checklist goes stale, the update cost drops.

08Operation: who applies it, when, at what grain

A checklist that merely exists does nothing. It works only once you decide at which gate, and by whom, it is applied. Assign the channel checklists to the four main gates of Issue 8: Gate Design (in preparation).

When the same person produces and finally approves, their own intent is visible to them and they underrate the misleading risk. Have the final verdict on patient-facing (C) and web navigation (B) applied by a separate person not involved in production. This follows the principle of Issue 1: The Three Layers of Quality (in preparation) — regulatory compliance is secured first among the three layers.

Templates are not fixed. When a rule is revised (an amendment to the fair ad standards, a change in MSA-G operation), update the specific columns and raise the version. The checklist itself is under version control as a traceability target.