Skip to content
How Asthra compares

ChatGPT, in-house RAG, or Asthra — what to use for regulatory writing.

Three categories of tool show up in evaluations: general-purpose chat assistants (ChatGPT, Claude direct), in-house RAG builds (your data team's bespoke pipeline), and a purpose-built regulatory writing studio. Below: 20+ capabilities side by side. Where each breaks down, where Asthra earns its keep, and where we don't claim more than the product delivers.

Side-by-side

What matters in regulated writing.

Capability
Generic AI chat
In-house RAG build
Asthra
Studio surface
Chat-native authoring inside the document
~Chat only, no document context
×Form-based UI, not chat-native
Section overview, freeform chat, approval gates — one surface
Walk-away drafting (run-and-return)
×
×
Background run, return to bundle in 1–2h
Mid-draft literature search (PubMed / CT.gov / bioRxiv)
~Open-internet, no provenance
×
Approval-gated, ledger-logged
Agent-driven data analysis over line listings & sales data
×LLM-fabricated arithmetic, no audit
×
Deterministic Python, every step audit-logged, table/figure output
Team-authored skills (reviewer personas on the roadmap)
×
×
~Skills shipped today; reviewer personas — FDA Clinical, CMC, CER Device, CSR Writer QC — on the roadmap
End-of-run QC report
×
×
Structured quality pass on every run
Audit-ready run bundles
×
×
Draft + provenance trail + QC + reproducibility metadata
Cross-section consistency held by the citation graph
×No cross-section model
×Per-query retrieval, no shared state
Same claim in §3, §9, §13 stays consistent
Document is a render of structured backend state (state-backed authoring)
×Word is the source of truth
×No persistent document state
Dossier State in the backend; Word renders
Grounding & provenance
Closed-system drafting; internet access gated
×Open by default; falls back to training memory
~Depends on implementation
Closed by default; writer-approval gate, ledger-logged
Sentence-level citations to your sources
×Best-effort, often invented
~Document-level only, typically
Document + sentence, on demand
Explicit gap flags for missing data
×Fills gaps with plausible text
×Surfaces nothing
Inline, ledger-recorded
Hyperlinks resolved at draft time (eCTD B21)
×
×Publishing-phase fixup
Anchored at write time, re-derives on reorder
Regulated writing fit
Module-specific writing rules (ICH E3, MDR, M4Q)
×
~Custom-built per module
Built in
Writes into your house templates
×
~Often markdown output
Native .docx with styles
Lives inside Microsoft Word
×Separate browser app
×Custom UI
Word add-in
Audit & compliance
Append-only audit ledger
×
~If you build it
Embedded in .docx
Survives the vendor (artifacts portable)
×
~Depends on architecture
By design
Operations
Time to first usable draft
Hours, but not trustworthy
×6–12 months to build
Days, with provenance
Maintenance & model upgrades
Vendor handles
×Your team's burden
Vendor handles, validated
Why this matters

Three things only
a purpose-built tool gets right.

REASON / 01

Cross-section consistency is a state problem, not a prompt problem

The reason CSRs and PSURs are 60% reconciliation work is that the methods, results, and discussion are written by different people from overlapping sources. Asthra writes from a shared citation graph, so the same claim in §3, §9, and §13 stays consistent automatically — within a drafting run. A chatbot has no concept of the rest of the document. An in-house RAG build has retrieval per query — no shared state across sections.

REASON / 02

Word renders. Asthra holds the state.

Other tools put a chat box next to a Word document and call it AI writing. Asthra runs the document from a structured backend — the Dossier State — with Word as the renderer. Walk-away drafting, mid-draft literature search, agent data analysis, reusable reviewer personas and skills, end-of-run QC, audit-ready run bundles — these only work as one product because every action mutates the same state, not a transient chat thread. State-backed authoring is the architectural property the rest of the studio sits on.

REASON / 03

Module rules and audit-readiness are not optional

ICH E3, E2C, E2F, MDR, M4Q are document obligations, not style preferences. Asthra encodes them as validated rules per module. And every plan, retrieval, draft step, and gap flag is recorded in an append-only ledger embedded in the .docx — survives offline, survives vendor changes, survives regulatory archival. That is a regulated-writing property, not an analytics dashboard.

Try it on a real CSR.

30-day pilot. We benchmark Asthra's output against whatever you're using today — generic AI, in-house build, or manual.