Product

One place per study

Each GLP study gets a workspace. The study file lives there — protocol, groups, subjects, samples, results, and the notebook entries written alongside them — instead of being spread across a share drive, an inbox, and someone's spreadsheet.

The sponsor sees live status in the same workspace. That removes the round of emails that otherwise stands between a question and its answer.

Gaps surface during the study, not at handoff

The system holds a model of what a study needs: which subjects, which timepoints, which tests, which results. It compares that model against what has actually been entered, continuously.

So a missing entry is visible while the animals are still on study and the gap can still be closed, rather than at the point where the data set is supposed to be finished.

Worksheets for bench work

Result entry is a grid, shaped like the work it records — a row per subject, a column per test, filled in the order the bench actually works.

Every entry carries who wrote it and when, in an append-only record. Corrections are recorded as corrections; nothing is overwritten in place.

The handoff the whole product is built around

Regulated CRO-to-sponsor delivery in SEND. The domain model is arranged around the SEND datasets from the start, so the delivery is a projection of the data you already entered rather than a conversion pass bolted on at the end.

That is the difference between an export that mostly works and a handoff you can stand behind.

Built to fit each lab

The system is core primitives plus reusable components and data models. A lab gets its own shape — its own tests, its own worksheets, its own workflow — instead of bending its process to fit a template.

Each customer runs its own repository and its own deployment, and upgrades on its own schedule. There are no forced migrations and no shared multi-tenant database holding another lab's study data.

Agents do the tedious work

Chasing missing entries, reconciling data, drafting routine documentation, flagging out-of-spec results. The lab defines its own automations rather than filing a change request and waiting on a vendor roadmap.

Agents reach the system through scoped API keys that a human grants and can revoke, and everything they do lands in the same audit record as human work.

Agentic testers produce the validation package. That is what makes software built for one lab affordable in a GLP setting.

A replacement, not another system

VSQRD takes over from the incumbent rather than sitting beside it and adding one more place to look. A LIMS that only covers part of the work leaves the lab running two systems and reconciling between them, which is worse than the one it started with.

Seeing it

If you run studies for sponsors, write to hello@vsqrd.com and we will show you a real deployment rather than slides.