Evidence Packs

Evidence packs combine structured content, supporting media, and version history into a package that teams can review and evolve over time.

They are best understood as review-ready packages rather than simple files. A strong evidence pack makes it clear what belongs together, how the package was built, and how it changed.

This screenshot is generated through the dedicated docs capture workflow so published guidance is backed by a stable asset path.

Who this is for

This page is for teams that assemble multi-part evidence for review, quality work, or operational justification.

Common use cases

• Assemble evidence for review or audit preparation.
• Generate draft content from templates.
• Enrich packs with linked media.
• Compare versions before restoring or approving a change.

What evidence packs are for operationally

Evidence packs are where teams bring together structured material that would be awkward to review as disconnected records.

Packs are useful when teams need:

• A reviewable package with clear scope.
• A mix of authored content and supporting media.
• Repeatable structure from templates.
• History that explains how the package evolved over time.

Typical evidence pack workflow

1. Create a pack for a specific review or evidence objective.
2. Start from a template when a standard structure already exists.
3. Hydrate draft sections when AI-assisted drafting is appropriate.
4. Refine the content manually.
5. Link supporting media and related records.
6. Review version history, compare changes, and restore an earlier version if needed.

flowchart TD
	A[Create pack for review objective] --> B[Start from template]
	B --> C[Hydrate draft sections]
	C --> D[Refine content manually]
	D --> E[Link supporting media]
	E --> F[Review history compare and restore]

When a pack is the right unit of work

Choose an evidence pack when the team is assembling something that will be reviewed as a package, not just edited as a single record.

That often means:

• Multiple sections matter together.
• Template structure is valuable.
• Linked media strengthens the review context.
• Compare, history, and restore are part of normal working practice.

Key decisions before you create a pack

Choose an evidence pack when:

• The work will be reviewed as a package rather than a single record.
• Template structure will save time and improve consistency.
• Linked media materially strengthens the review context.
• Version history, compare, and restore are part of normal working practice.

Choose a standalone document when the work is still a single governed artefact that does not need package-level structure.

Key concepts

• Template-driven hydration.
• Manual revision after hydration.
• Linked media and supporting context.
• Compare and restore behavior.
• Ownership and review expectations.

Authoring and review expectations

Evidence packs often move through a loop of generation, refinement, and review.

Teams should know:

• Who is expected to own the pack content.
• When generated sections need manual cleanup.
• When reviewers should look at history instead of only the latest visible version.
• How linked media helps justify or explain the pack content.

Core lifecycle operations

The product supports the full governed lifecycle teams expect here:

• List and open evidence packs.
• Create new packs.
• Update the current version.
• Clone an existing pack.
• Hydrate sections from a template.
• View history and compare versions.
• Restore an earlier version.
• Soft delete and undelete.
• Link, unlink, and review media attachments.

stateDiagram-v2
	[*] --> Draft
	Draft --> Hydrated: Hydrate from template
	Hydrated --> Refined: Manual refinement
	Refined --> Reviewed: Compare and history review
	Reviewed --> Restored: Restore earlier version
	Restored --> Refined
	Reviewed --> Deleted: Soft delete
	Deleted --> Refined: Undelete

Hydration helps teams get to a structured draft faster, but ownership of the content still stays with the team using the pack.

What data users actually maintain on the evidence pack form

The evidence pack header form is intentionally focused on classification and reuse context. The richer content structure usually comes from the template and the hydrated or manually refined sections inside the pack.

Users should expect the main pack form to hold:

• the pack title
• category
• language
• therapeutic areas
• a working description of the pack objective

That means the product separates pack identity from pack content. The header says what the pack is, while the template-backed sections, linked media, and later history explain what evidence the pack actually contains.

Hydration and manual refinement

Hydration is one of the easiest places to misunderstand the product. The message needs to stay direct:

• Hydration creates a draft, not a finished pack.
• Template structure improves consistency, not correctness by itself.
• Manual refinement is part of the intended workflow.
• Review should focus on the resulting content and supporting evidence, not only on whether hydration completed.

Evidence packs versus documents

Use a document when the team needs a single versioned artefact.

Use an evidence pack when the team needs a structured set of evidence that will likely draw from templates, media, iterative drafting, and formal comparison or review.

What teams should decide

• Whether a standalone document is enough.
• Whether a template-backed evidence pack is a better fit.
• When to clone an earlier pack versus start fresh.
• When restoring a known-good version is safer than continuing to edit.

Review and governance

Evidence packs are governed artefacts. Teams should understand:

• Who is expected to own the pack.
• When to rely on history and compare views.
• When restoring an earlier version is safer than continuing to edit forward.
• How linked media helps explain or support the pack content.

Acceptance checks for evidence pack data entry

• A user can classify an evidence pack by category, language, and therapeutic context.
• A user can identify the pack objective from the record header before opening the full content.
• A user can distinguish header metadata from the richer template-backed content inside the pack.
• A team can rely on the pack header to understand scope while still using history, hydration, and linked media for full review.

Common customer misunderstandings to prevent

• Evidence packs are not just file bundles.
• Hydration success does not mean review is finished.
• Compare and history are core operational features, not edge-case recovery tools.
• Linked media is part of the pack context, not merely decoration.

Read next

• Entity views and forms
• Templates
• Actions And Runs
• Governance And Compliance

API reference

Use TrialStack API reference for exact evidence pack contract details, including hydrate, clone, history, compare, restore, delete, undelete, and media-linking operations.