The problem

    Compliance is fragmented, static, and manual.

    Fragmented

    Compliance lives across binders, spreadsheets, and disconnected QMS tools that don't speak to each other.

    Static

    Technical documentation is treated as a one-time submission. Regulation isn't.

    Manual

    Every regulatory update means human chasing across teams, suppliers, and notified bodies.

    The Thesis

    Regulation is continuous. Compliance should be too.

    The system

    One compliance system, taken to every market.

    Each market asks different questions of the same device. We build one system that answers them, and take it to the EU, Great Britain and the US in the order your roadmap needs.

    • Classification and strategy
    • Quality management system
    • Technical documentation
    • Clinical evaluation
    • Post-market surveillance

    One compliance system

    • 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.

    In development

    Artifakt Platform.

    Designed to keep your whole quality system on one connected record per device, so your team can spend its time on the device itself.

    • One connected system.One connected systemDesigned to keep every process on one record per device, so a change in one carries through to the rest.
    • Reduce overhead.Reduce overheadDesigned to carry the routine documentation for your team, so their time goes into developing the device.
    • Across the whole lifecycle.The whole lifecycleDesigned to run from design and development through to deployment and post-market surveillance.

    First module, live

    Artifakt Vigilance.

    One free search across eight public safety and literature registries, with the results in one dashboard and export to Excel, CSV or PDF. A public search, with no AI.

    Live, free, no account
    Try Vigilance, free
    vigilance.artifaktmedical.com · a search, shown with illustrative data

    Today

    Hands-on regulatory consulting for medical devices.

    Scoped to where you are now, across the EU, Great Britain and the US. We start with a gap analysis, and the other five services are the work streams of the one compliance system.

    • Senior and hands-on. We write the technical file ourselves, not just advise on it.
    • AI-native. AI drafts, cross-checks and keeps the files consistent. A specialist reviews everything before it reaches you.
    • Independent of the platform. The consulting runs today and does not depend on Artifakt Platform.

    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.

    Why Artifakt

    Medtech regulatory 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

      Medical devices are all we do, with software and AI at the core. 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.

    Common 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.

    ARTIFAKT MEDICAL

    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.