Agent · v1.0 · Live in pilot

Codex Reg.
Your Regulatory Affairs Specialist.

A 10-year-tenure-analog regulatory professional, on call. Three workflows, no more. Every output cited to a primary source. Every output gated on a named human. Every output signed.

Three workflows

v1 ships with exactly these three. Anything else is out of scope.

Discipline beats feature surface. Each workflow has a defined input envelope, a defined deliverable, an audit-footer schema, and an eval gate.

Workflow A

US label compliance review

Line-by-line conformance review against 21 CFR Part 101. FALCPA + sesame allergen check. Nutrient-content and health-claim review. Findings tagged PASS / WARNING / BLOCKER with cites and a print-readiness punch list.

Workflow B

Claims substantiation

Structure/function vs. health vs. drug classification under DSHEA. Required disclaimers. Evidence sufficiency analysis at the labeled dose. Defensible rewrites you can ship today.

Workflow C

Multi-state shipping diff

State-by-state delta vs. CA (Prop 65 + AB 418), NY, WA, IL, TX. Naturally-occurring exemption analysis with the three-prong test spelled out. Risk matrix + recommended warning approach.

What every output looks like

Reviewable artifact, not chat transcript.

The findings table is the headline. The audit footer is the legal artifact.

#FindingSeverityCiteRecommendation
1"Heart healthy" is an unauthorized implied health claim.BLOCKER21 CFR §101.14Remove, or replace with a permissible nutrient-content claim if numeric thresholds met.
2"High in fiber" — product reports 3g (11% DV); requires ≥20% DV per RACC.BLOCKER§101.54(b)Reformulate to ≥5g, or downgrade to "Good source of fiber" (≥10% DV).
3No CONTAINS: allergen statement; product contains almonds.BLOCKERFALCPA / §101.22Add CONTAINS: TREE NUTS (ALMONDS). adjacent to ingredient statement.
4"Natural Vanilla Flavor" — verify backing per §101.22(a)(3).WARN§101.22Confirm flavor system is natural under FDA definition; keep supplier docs.
5Responsible-party statement present; city/state acceptable.PASS§101.5
Every deliverable ends with this audit footer. It's the artifact a SQF / BRCGS / FSSC 22000 auditor accepts as evidence of the review — and the document that survives a warning letter or outside-counsel review.
{
  "agent": "Regulatory Affairs Specialist",
  "agent_version": "v1.0",
  "model": "claude-opus-4-7",
  "run_id": "<uuid>",
  "customer": "<tenant id>",
  "inputs_hash": "sha256:<hash>",
  "tools_used": ["parse_label", "lookup_cfr", "..."],
  "citations": [
    { "source": "21 CFR §101.14", "accessed": "2026-06-01" }
  ],
  "human_checkpoints_required": [
    "marketing_claim_signoff",
    "vp_quality_signoff_before_print"
  ],
  "confidence": "high",
  "started_at": "2026-06-01T22:30:00Z",
  "completed_at": "2026-06-01T22:32:14Z"
}
The tool belt

Six tools. Each returns provenance.

The agent orchestrates; tools never call other tools. The call graph is reviewable in every audit log.

parse_label

Extracts structured fields (ingredient statement, allergens, net qty, serving size, claims) from label text or image.

lookup_cfr

Current text of a 21 CFR Part 101 section or related federal rule (FALCPA, FSMA, DSHEA). Daily delta-crawl in production.

lookup_state_law

State-level food law (Prop 65, AB 418, NY S213, IL HB 2438, etc.). State-by-state pipeline in production.

prop65_check

Given ingredients + processing, returns Prop 65 chemicals likely present, safe-harbor thresholds, and the naturally-occurring exemption analysis.

compare_label_to_formula

Deterministic reconciliation of ingredient order, allergen disclosure, and quantitative reps. Audit-friendly.

claims_evidence_search

Searches FDA health-claim approvals, EFSA opinions, and PubMed for evidence supporting a claim at a given dose.

Engagement

Priced as a fraction of the FTE Codex Reg partly replaces.

Not per-seat SaaS. Anchored to 10–25% of a loaded FTE (~$110K–$170K/yr) for a defined deliverable slice.

Pilot · 90 days

$1,500 /mo

10 tasks/mo · one workflow · hand-held setup · 2-day SLA.

Standard

$2,500 /mo

30 tasks/mo · all three workflows · 2 users · 1-day SLA.

Pro

$4,500 /mo

100 tasks/mo · priority queue · Slack channel · same-day SLA.

Plant Suite

−25% bundle

Codex Reg + Codex Quality, shared per-tenant KB.

FAQ

The questions every regulatory director asks first.

What model is under the hood?

Claude (Anthropic). We are a Claude-powered wrapper purpose-built for food and beverage regulatory work. We do not fine-tune in v1. The defensible work is the per-tenant knowledge base, the eval suite, and the workflow contracts.

Is this a chatbot?

No. Codex Reg has a defined scope, a tool belt, a signed audit log, and a human checkpoint on every regulated output. The deliverable is a reviewable artifact — a label review with citations, a claims memo, a state-diff matrix.

How is my data handled?

Per-tenant directories and retrieval from Day 1. Your content is never used to train a shared model and never appears in another customer's responses. We can sign a DPA.

Will this give me legal advice?

No. Codex Reg produces regulatory analysis with primary-source citations. Anything that crosses into legal advice is flagged and routed to outside counsel. Drug claims trigger an automatic escalation.

What happens if Codex Reg is wrong?

Every BLOCKER finding and every claim rewrite is gated on a named human checkpoint in your workflow. The audit footer records who acknowledged what, when. We carry E&O insurance from Month 4 of any paid engagement, and the pilot contract caps liability.

How does this compare to FoodReady / Truli / RegASK?

Those are horizontal compliance platforms. F&B Codex sells named role agents that drop into your org chart at FTE-fraction pricing. Different product, different sales motion, different buyer.

Pick one workflow. Send three sample artifacts. We'll have a review in your inbox in under 14 days.

Start a pilot →