An IND submission is not ready for authoring simply because the required studies are underway or because each functional team has started preparing documents. Use this IND submission checklist to confirm content owners, source documents, evidence, red flags, and authoring readiness before writing begins.
Before writing begins in earnest, the sponsor should know what content is required, where the supporting evidence resides, who owns each section, which decisions are still open, and what information cannot change without affecting other parts of the submission.
For most programs, the fastest way to reduce avoidable rewriting is to complete an authoring-readiness review before assigning sections.
This IND submission checklist is designed for that purpose.
Who this checklist is for
This resource is intended primarily for:
-
- Heads or VPs of Regulatory Affairs
-
- Regulatory Operations leaders
-
- Chief Medical Officers
-
- Clinical development leaders coordinating an initial IND
-
- Emerging biotech teams preparing for their first major FDA filing
It is most useful from late IND-enabling development through preparation of the initial IND, although the same principles apply to later regulatory submissions.
The checklist does not replace a product-specific regulatory strategy. The exact evidence required depends on the investigational product, indication, proposed clinical study, development phase, prior FDA interactions, and applicable guidance.
Before authoring starts: confirm these five things
At a minimum, the submission team should be able to answer five questions:
What exactly are we submitting?
The indication, development stage, proposed study, product configuration, dose strategy, and regulatory pathway should be sufficiently defined.
What evidence supports each section?
Authors need controlled source documents not assumptions, meeting recollections, or draft data scattered across teams.
Who owns the scientific content?
Every major section should have a sponsor-side content owner who can answer questions and approve interpretation.
Which information is still changing?
An unstable protocol, manufacturing process, toxicology conclusion, dose rationale, or data cutoff can cause rewriting across several modules.
Who makes the final decision when functions disagree?
Establish escalation and approval responsibilities before review cycles begin.
The goal is not to freeze development prematurely. It is to distinguish normal evolving information from unresolved issues that make meaningful authoring impossible.
Sponsor-side IND submission checklist
| Workstream | Confirm before authoring | Evidence/source material | Primary sponsor owner | Red flags |
| Regulatory strategy | Indication, population, development phase, proposed study, regulatory pathway and key FDA commitments are aligned | Regulatory strategy, FDA correspondence, meeting minutes, briefing packages, decision log | Regulatory Affairs | Different teams are working from different assumptions; FDA feedback has not been translated into actions |
| Submission scope | Contents of the initial filing are mapped and applicable sections identified | Submission content plan, document list, responsibility matrix | Regulatory Affairs / Regulatory Operations | No controlled content map; uncertainty about what will be included now versus later |
| Clinical protocol | Objectives, population, dosing, escalation, stopping criteria, safety monitoring and key assessments are sufficiently stable | Current protocol, synopsis, dose rationale, medical monitoring plan | Clinical Development / Medical | Major protocol decisions remain open; protocol conflicts with CMC or nonclinical assumptions |
| Investigator’s Brochure | Current product, nonclinical and available clinical safety information is consistently represented | Current IB and supporting reports | Medical / Clinical / Regulatory | IB uses older datasets, product descriptions or dose assumptions |
| CMC | Drug substance and drug product information supports the material proposed for clinical use | Manufacturing descriptions, specifications, methods, batch records, stability data, certificates, labeling | CMC | Manufacturing site/process is changing without impact assessment; stability coverage is unclear; batch identifiers differ between documents |
| Nonclinical | Available pharmacology, disposition and toxicology evidence supports the proposed clinical exposure | Final or quality-controlled reports, GLP statements where applicable, tables, dose justification, toxicology interpretation | Toxicology / Nonclinical | Key reports are still changing; starting-dose rationale cannot be traced to source data; study identifiers are inconsistent |
| Previous human experience | Relevant prior clinical or human-use information has been identified and assessed | Clinical reports, publications, foreign experience, prior IND references or authorized cross-references | Clinical / Regulatory | Known prior experience is distributed across teams with no single inventory |
| Study data | Applicable datasets, standards, metadata and supporting documentation have been planned | Data standards plan, datasets, define files, reviewer guides, validation outputs as applicable | Data Management / Biostatistics / Regulatory Operations | Submission standards are considered only after analysis is complete; dataset ownership is unclear |
| Administrative content | Current application forms, sponsor information, contacts, CRO responsibilities and certifications are identified | Current FDA forms and administrative records | Regulatory Operations | Forms are populated late from inconsistent source information |
| eCTD/publishing | Applicable current FDA submission standards, sequence strategy and publishing responsibilities are defined | Publishing plan, current technical specifications, validation plan | Regulatory Operations / Publishing | Publishing begins only after documents are “final”; file naming and document granularity have not been planned |
| Cross-document consistency | Product name, study IDs, batch numbers, dose units, terminology and data cutoffs are controlled | Master terminology/data sheet or submission style guide | Regulatory Operations | Authors create their own names, abbreviations or data conventions |
| Review and approval | Authors, reviewers, approvers and escalation paths are assigned | RACI, authoring plan, review calendar, issue log | Regulatory Lead | Everyone reviews everything; no single person has decision authority |
What “authoring ready” should mean
A section does not need to be scientifically final before writing can start.
It does, however, need a sufficiently stable evidence base.
A useful way to classify readiness is:
Green — ready to author
The source documents exist, the content owner is identified, major scientific decisions are resolved, and remaining changes are unlikely to alter the core narrative.
Yellow — controlled authoring can begin
Most evidence is available, but one or more known inputs remain outstanding. The team knows exactly what is missing, who owns it, and when it is expected.
These sections can often be drafted with clearly identified placeholders.
Red — do not start full authoring
The underlying strategy or evidence is still moving. Examples include:
-
- unresolved starting dose or escalation strategy;
-
- major changes to the proposed clinical protocol;
-
- incomplete interpretation of pivotal toxicology findings;
-
- uncertain clinical batch or manufacturing process;
-
- conflicting datasets;
-
- unresolved FDA feedback; or
-
- no accountable content owner.
Writing a red section usually creates activity rather than progress.
Pay particular attention to the handoffs
For emerging sponsors, submission delays often occur between functions rather than within them.
CMC to nonclinical and clinical
Confirm that the material described in the submission corresponds to the material used in relevant studies, or that differences are understood and appropriately addressed.
Nonclinical to clinical
The clinical dose, escalation scheme, monitoring strategy and stopping criteria should be traceable to the applicable nonclinical evidence and medical interpretation.
Clinical to medical writing
Do not ask writers to resolve unresolved protocol strategy through drafting. The protocol’s core design decisions should already have accountable owners.
Functional teams to Regulatory Operations
Regulatory Operations should receive controlled documents, expected finalization dates and known dependencies—not simply a folder of drafts.
Authors to reviewers
Agree in advance on what reviewers are reviewing.
A scientific SME should focus on scientific accuracy. Regulatory should focus on positioning and compliance. Medical writing should focus on clarity, consistency and document integration. Regulatory Operations should focus on submission structure and technical readiness.
Without this separation, review cycles expand quickly.
Phase-appropriate does not mean incomplete
For an initial Phase 1 IND, FDA recognizes that development is still evolving.
For example, CMC information should be sufficient to support the identity, quality, purity, strength and stability of the investigational product for the proposed clinical investigation, but final commercial specifications are not expected at this stage.
Similarly, the nonclinical package should be appropriate to the nature and duration of the proposed clinical investigation rather than treated as a fixed universal list.
That makes the sponsor’s rationale especially important.
The submission should make clear not only what information exists, but also why the available information is adequate for the proposed stage of development and clinical exposure.
Build one source-of-truth matrix before drafting
A simple readiness matrix can prevent substantial downstream rework.
For every planned document or section, capture:
Section → Owner → Author → Source documents → Data cutoff → Open issues → Dependencies → Reviewer → Target approval status
Do not rely on a document tracker that shows only “Not Started / Draft / Final.”
A document can be “Not Started” and completely authoring-ready. Another can be “80% Drafted” while depending on an unresolved decision that will require most of it to be rewritten.
Track content readiness separately from writing progress.
Five red flags to resolve before accelerating writing
Consider slowing the authoring effort if:
1. No one can identify the authoritative source.
If three teams have three versions of a dataset or technical report, drafting should not decide which one is correct.
2. The same scientific decision is being debated in several documents.
Resolve the decision once, document it, and then apply it consistently.
3. Authors are repeatedly asking who can approve content.
This is an ownership problem, not a writing problem.
4. Regulatory Operations is waiting until the end.
Submission structure, document granularity, technical standards and publishing requirements should be considered before final documents arrive.
5. Review comments reopen strategy instead of improving the document.
That usually indicates that authoring started before the underlying content was ready.
What should sponsors do next?
Before launching full IND authoring:
- Build the submission content map.
- Assign a sponsor owner to every major workstream.
- Inventory the controlled source documents.
- Identify missing evidence and unresolved decisions.
- Classify each section as green, yellow or red.
- Resolve red items or explicitly manage them as submission risks.
- Establish terminology, data cutoffs and document conventions.
- Assign authors and scientific reviewers.
- Confirm current FDA technical and data-submission requirements.
- Begin integrated authoring with a controlled issue log.
Only then should writing velocity become the primary measure of progress.
The objective is not to start every document as early as possible. It is to start each document when the team can write it efficiently, accurately and consistently.
For sponsors approaching a filing but still working through content ownership, source-document readiness or cross-functional authoring, BioBoston CRO Submission Writing support can help establish the content plan and move the submission through coordinated drafting and review.
Final takeaway
A strong IND submission starts before the first section is drafted. The most useful IND submission checklist is therefore not simply a list of documents.
It is a readiness test:
Do we know what must be written, what evidence supports it, who owns the content, what is still changing, and who can make the final decision?
If those answers are clear, authoring becomes much more predictable.
If they are not, solving them first is usually the fastest path forward.
Need help applying this to your program? Explore BioBoston CRO Submission Writing support.
