Independent · non-commercial · publishes on a quarterly cycle|Current cycle 2026 Q3
Compound Evidence InstituteEvidence synthesis · established 2023Graded assessments of compounds, trials, methods and supply
Document set current to 30 July 2026
Public comment period · Evaluation rubric

Draft supplier evaluation rubric

Consultation on the rubric by which the Institute assesses a supplier dossier. The rubric scores documentary and analytical practice; it does not score product quality, and the draft was released for comment principally because respondents to an earlier…

Document identifier
CEI-CP-002
Series
Public comment period
Version
1.0
Published
22 Oct 2023
Last reviewed
22 Oct 2023
Next review
22 Oct 2024
Identifier
10.71829/cei.cp.2
Certainty
Not rated
Cycle
2023 Q3
Window
06 Aug 2023 – 20 Sep 2023
Status
Closed
Submissions
10

§1Consultation and window

§1.1Window

Opened
6 August 2023
Closed
20 September 2023
Duration
45 days
Status
Closed — the disposition is published
Document under consultation
Evaluation rubric
Submissions received
10

§1.2Consultation questions

The secretariat put the following questions. A submission was not required to address them and several did not; the questions record what the Institute was uncertain about rather than restricting what a respondent could raise.

  1. Is the weighting between analytical evidence and documentary practice defensible, given that a supplier can score well on documentation while releasing material on a certificate it did not itself generate?
  2. Does the rubric state clearly enough what a score does not establish?
  3. Is any criterion in the draft one that a supplier could satisfy without any change to what it actually does?

§1.3How a submission is handled

  • Every submission is signed. The Institute publishes no anonymous submission.
  • Every submission carries a declared interest. A declaration of no interest is itself a declaration and is recorded as one. A declaration is not a disqualification and the Institute has never given a submission less weight on that ground.
  • A submission from an employee of a marketing-authorisation holder is identified as an industry submission on its face, following a unanimous consultation on the conflicts policy.
  • Every submission receives a secretariat response and a disposition. Submissions that are not accepted remain published in full; the Institute does not remove a submission because it disagrees with it.
  • There is no voting, no reputation score, no reply thread and no editing after receipt.

§1.4Outcome

The rubric was amended in several respects before ratification, most substantially by the addition of a standing statement, printed at the head of every dossier, that a rubric score assesses evidence and documentation rather than product quality.

The disposition table, listing each submission with its disposition and the resulting amendment, is at §3.

Nothing published by the Institute is medical advice, a diagnosis, a prescription, a treatment recommendation or a purchasing recommendation. Compounds supplied for research use are not approved for human or veterinary use in any jurisdiction, and a favourable analytical assessment of a supplier is not a statement that any product is safe or effective. The Institute publishes certainty ratings and never recommendations. No telephone number, messaging handle or ordering channel appears anywhere on this site.