Design partners

We are looking for three to five plants to build this with.

Pildeon has no customers yet and will not pretend otherwise. It is recruiting design partners in pharma and CDMO oral solid dose plants to instrument one wedge workflow in shadow mode, baseline the numbers, and convert to a paid validated pilot only on evidence.

Become a design partner How the engagement runs

3 to 5 design partnersShadow mode firstNo invented references

run_b2c7e1 · agent graph · scenario 10 nodes · 1 QA approval gate
01 · orchestrator ingest.batch_record ✓ SUCCEEDED 02 · orchestrator twin.rehearse ✓ SUCCEEDED 03 · blend_dispense blend.uniformity ✓ SUCCEEDED 04 · granulate_dry granulate.dry ✓ SUCCEEDED 05 · compress_fill compress.press ✓ SUCCEEDED 06 · coat_dry coat.spray ✓ SUCCEEDED 07 · defect_inspect inspect.tablets ✓ SUCCEEDED 08 · quality_potency spectra.release_evidence ✓ SUCCEEDED 09 · orchestrator approve.qa ◆ APPROVAL 10 · quality_conf release.genealogy ✓ SUCCEEDED

Scenario: Run one immediate-release tablet batch through granulation, compression, coating and inspection inside the approved design space, with QA approval before release. A design walkthrough, not a customer record.

Who

Who we build with first

The ideal first partner is a branded, generic or CDMO maker of tablets or capsules, with enough volume for a clear ROI and the integration access to make a loop possible.

Profile

Tablet and capsule makers, $150M to $50B revenue

Dispensing, blending, granulation, compression, capsule-filling, coating and inspection lines, with an executive mandate to raise yield or cut rejects and deviations.

Systems

Integration access

Existing compression, coating or granulation equipment, PAT, NIR or vision, and MES with API or OT access. Connectors are built against your stack.

Mandate

Continuous manufacturing or real-time release ambitions

Sites moving toward continuous manufacturing or real-time release testing get the most from Spectryn and Twindra early.

Pilot appetite

A validated paid pilot with a defined metric

Willingness to run shadow mode, then a validated pilot with a reject, deviation, yield or release-time success metric agreed in writing.

Champion

An MSAT engineer who wants the loop closed

The champion is usually the formulation or process engineer who owns the recipes and the design space and is tired of finding drift after the batch.

Approvers

QA and validation at the table from day one

Validation is a gating stakeholder. We would rather meet QA in the first week than in the last.

The exchange

What a design partner gets, and what we ask

A fair trade, written down before the first connector is installed.

You get

  • Shadow-mode instrumentation of one wedge workflow at no charge, with the baseline report
  • Prediction accuracy measured against your own QC results, shared openly
  • Design-partner pricing on the Line tier when and if you convert
  • A say in connector priorities, review-console design and validation artefacts
  • Your formulations, recipes and spectra kept tenant-isolated and never used for another customer's models

We ask

  • Read access to the wedge equipment, PAT and MES, under your IT, OT and validation controls
  • Historical batch records, QC results and deviations for the wedge, to baseline and to train per-tenant models
  • Time from an MSAT champion and a QA reviewer, weekly
  • A written success metric before any paid pilot
  • Permission to describe the engagement, anonymised, once there is a measured result
Not a fit

Who we are not building for yet

Being clear about this saves everyone a quarter.

Scope

Compounding pharmacies and non-GMP nutraceutical shops

Without a validated OSD scope there is no design space to bound and no Part 11 trail to keep.

Access

Sites that cannot integrate

If compression, coating, PAT and MES systems cannot be connected under IP, security and validation controls, there is no loop to close.

Expectation

Buyers who want a dashboard

Pildeon is a validated system of action. A site that wants read-only monitoring will be better served by its existing PAT and MES vendors.

Run timeline · scenario

The run behind the partnership

This is what the wedge workflow looks like once it has graduated from shadow mode: one line, bounded moves, QA on release.

run_b2c7e1 Line 2 · rotary tablet press · scenario SUCCEEDED
  1. 01 ingest.batch_record SUCCEEDED 1.2 s

    Plant Orchestrator · Pulled the master batch record, the approved design-space limits for this formulation and tooling family, and the site autonomy policy from MES; locked the target envelope for the run.

  2. 02 twin.rehearse SUCCEEDED 41 s

    Plant Orchestrator · Twindra simulated 36 candidate setpoint vectors on the as-made batch twin (granulation DEM, compression and ejection risk, coating CFD, dissolution surrogate) and ranked them on predicted content uniformity, capping risk and takt.

  3. 03 blend.uniformity SUCCEEDED 6 m 10 s

    Blend-and-Dispense · Spectryn scored in-line NIR spectra against the formulation's chemometric model; the blend reached its uniformity end point with confidence bounds inside the site acceptance limit and blending stopped on evidence rather than on a fixed time.

  4. 04 granulate.dry SUCCEEDED 3 m 48 s

    Granulate-and-Dry · Inlet air temperature and drying airflow trimmed inside the approved window to bring loss-on-drying to the target moisture band for compression; the move was bounded, logged and inside the design space.

  5. 05 compress.press SUCCEEDED 2 m 02 s

    Compress-and-Fill · Main compression force and feed-frame speed adjusted inside the approved window to hold tablet weight and hardness on target while the twin's capping-risk estimate stayed under the site threshold.

  6. 06 coat.spray SUCCEEDED 4 m 25 s

    Coat-and-Dry · Spray rate and inlet temperature re-phased against bed temperature and exhaust humidity to hold the film-coat window and avoid twinning and mottling; no excursion from the validated recipe envelope.

  7. 07 inspect.tablets SUCCEEDED continuous

    Defect-and-Inspect · Visqa classified chips, cracks, capping, spots, mottling and print defects on six synchronised cameras, within the sub-100 ms design budget, and linked a rising chip rate to coating spray rather than to tooling.

  8. 08 spectra.release_evidence SUCCEEDED 38 s

    Quality-and-Potency · Spectryn assembled the method-linked evidence chain for content uniformity and moisture with confidence bounds and citations to the validated analytical method, ready for QA review.

  9. 09 approve.qa APPROVAL 3 m 14 s

    Plant Orchestrator · Batch release is above every autonomy level Pildeon offers. The package was held for the named QA reviewer, who approved it in the review console; the decision, the reviewer identity and the timestamp are in the Part 11 audit trail.

  10. 10 release.genealogy SUCCEEDED 52 s

    Quality-and-Conformance · Conforma wrote the time-aligned batch genealogy (every sensor state, recommendation, approved action, equipment response and QC result) and the cited release package to the immutable audit trail.

Onboarding

What the first phases look like

Timelines depend on your validation and change-control calendar, so these are phases rather than weeks.

  1. Scoping. Line review, wedge selection, stakeholder map (site director, MSAT champion, QA and validation approvers, IT and OT).
  2. Connection. Read-only connectors to equipment, PAT, MES and LIMS. Historical extract for the baseline. Edge node installed and validated for read-only operation.
  3. Shadow. Pildeon scores and predicts. Accuracy against QC results and the formulator baseline is reported weekly. Nothing is written.
  4. Assist. Recommendations in the review console; engineers enter the moves; QA reviews the log; ROI is measured against the baseline.
  5. Decision. Convert to a paid validated pilot on a written metric, or stop. Either way you keep the baseline report.
The first meeting

What each stakeholder asks first

Pildeon has no customer quotes to show yet, and will not invent any. These are the questions the three buyers in an OSD plant ask in the first meeting, and the answer each gets.

"What does this do to my reject rate, my deviation count and my release time, and how will you prove it on my line rather than on a slide?"

Site or manufacturing director · economic buyer

Answer: shadow mode first, baseline captured before any autonomous action, a written ROI target before a paid pilot.

"Will it ever move a setpoint outside the design space we validated, and can I see why it recommended every move it made?"

Formulation or process engineer (MSAT) · champion

Answer: no, by construction. Every recommendation carries its reasoning trace and its citation.

"Where is the Part 11 audit trail, who signs the release, and what happens to my validated state when the model changes?"

QA, quality and compliance lead · approver

Answer: an immutable audit spine, a named QA reviewer on every release, and every model change under GxP change control.

Tool calls · scenario

The agent shows its work

Every tool invocation, argument and result is written to an immutable, human-readable log, and every reasoning step is expandable. Nothing about a run is hidden from the plant or from QA.

tool-call stream · run_b2c7e1
  1. 06:12:04mes.read_batch_record({ line: "L2", product: "IR tablet · family A" })
  2. 06:12:05ok design space loaded · autonomy policy L2 · QA reviewer assigned
  3. 06:12:06twin.simulate({ candidates: 36, horizon: "full batch" })
  4. 06:12:47ok candidate #14 selected · predicted CU inside limit · capping risk under threshold
  5. 06:12:48policy.evaluate({ candidate: 14, autonomy: "L2" })
  6. 06:12:48ok 5 setpoint moves inside design space · release held for QA
  7. 06:12:49nir.score({ probe: "blender-1", model: "cu-famA-v3" })
  8. 06:18:59ok blend end point reached · confidence bounds inside acceptance limit
  9. 06:19:00plc.write_setpoint({ tag: "FBD1.INLET_T", within: "design space" })
  10. 06:22:48ok loss-on-drying in target band · move logged to audit trail
  11. 06:22:49press.write_setpoint({ tag: "TP2.MAIN_FORCE", within: "design space" })
  12. 06:24:51ok weight and hardness on target · capping risk under threshold
  13. 06:24:52vision.stream({ cameras: 6, model: "visqa-defect-v2" })
  14. 06:27:10chip rate rising on camera 4 · attributed to spray rate, not tooling
  15. 06:27:11coater.write_setpoint({ tag: "CT1.SPRAY", within: "design space" })
  16. 06:29:14ok chip rate back to baseline · film window held
  17. 06:29:15nir.evidence_chain({ attributes: ["cu", "moisture"], method: "validated" })
  18. 06:29:53ok evidence chain assembled · citations attached
  19. 06:29:54approval.request({ action: "batch_release", reviewer: "QA" })
  20. 06:33:08ok approved by the named QA reviewer · identity and timestamp logged
  21. 06:33:09audit.write_release_package({ batch: "B-240918", genealogy: "full" })
  22. 06:34:01ok scenario complete · genealogy written · package cited

Reasoning trace

Plan, thought, action, observation, exactly as the orchestrator records it.

GoalRun one immediate-release tablet batch through granulation, co…

Run one immediate-release tablet batch through granulation, compression, coating and inspection inside the approved design space, with QA approval before release.

PlanRehearse on the twin first. Stop blending on NIR evidence rath…

Rehearse on the twin first. Stop blending on NIR evidence rather than on a fixed time. Trim drying, compression and coating only inside the approved design space. Inspect continuously. Hold release for the named QA reviewer, always.

ThoughtThe fixed recipe blends for a set time regardless of what the …

The fixed recipe blends for a set time regardless of what the spectra say. On the twin, the candidate that stops on evidence and trims inlet temperature before compression keeps content uniformity and moisture inside their limits with the lowest predicted capping risk.

Actiontwin.simulate(candidates=36) → candidate #14: evidence-based b…

twin.simulate(candidates=36) → candidate #14: evidence-based blend end point, bounded drying trim, compression force held inside the window, spray rate re-phased to bed temperature.

ObservationEvery candidate that pushed turret speed for takt raised predi…

Every candidate that pushed turret speed for takt raised predicted capping risk above the site threshold and was discarded. Rate is never traded for a quality attribute.

ActionExecute candidate #14 under autonomy level L2: five setpoint m…

Execute candidate #14 under autonomy level L2: five setpoint moves inside the design space, each logged. Batch release routed to QA.

ObservationChip rate rose on camera 4 at 06:27:10. Visqa attributed it to…

Chip rate rose on camera 4 at 06:27:10. Visqa attributed it to coating spray rather than tooling; a bounded spray-rate trim returned it to baseline in about two minutes.

OutcomeScenario complete. Every move inside the approved design space…

Scenario complete. Every move inside the approved design space, the QA approval recorded with identity and timestamp, and the cited release package written by Conforma to the immutable audit trail.

Autonomy

Four levels, set per agent and per setpoint

A tablet plant does not go from fixed recipes to autonomy in one step, and validated parameters never change without sign-off. Pildeon makes the level explicit, auditable and reversible at any time.

Autonomy levels and the human role at each
LevelWhat the agent doesWhat the human doesTypical time to reach
L0 · ShadowObserves, scores and predicts; writes nothingRuns the line as today; compares predictions to QC resultsWeeks 1 to 6 of a design partnership
L1 · AssistRecommends setpoint moves and explains whyProcess engineer enters the move; QA reviews the logAfter shadow-mode accuracy is shown
L2 · SupervisedProposes a bounded move; it executes on approvalApproves each move in the review consoleAfter assist-mode ROI is shown
L3 · BoundedMoves low-risk compression, coating and inspection setpoints inside the approved design spaceHandles exceptions; approves every releaseAfter validation and change-control review

There is no unattended level. Batch release and any move outside the approved design space always wait for a named QA reviewer, and every model or prompt change runs under GxP change control.

Integrations

It speaks tablet plant, not cloud

Pildeon reads and writes through the systems already on the floor: presses, coaters, granulators, PAT probes, MES, LIMS and historians. No rip-and-replace, no parallel historian. Connectors are built with design partners against their stacks; the vendors listed are the ones common in OSD plants.

Blending and granulation

GEA, Glatt, Syntegon, Freund-Vector, L.B. Bohle

Blender, granulator and fluid-bed telemetry; bounded setpoint writes

Tablet presses and fillers

Fette Compacting, Korsch, IMA, Syntegon, MG2

Force curves, fill depth, ejection force; bounded setpoint writes

Coating systems

GEA, Glatt, O'Hara, Thomas, Freund

Spray, inlet, bed temperature, exhaust humidity; bounded writes

PAT and NIR

Bruker, Sartorius, Viavi probes and analysers

Spectra across blend, granulation, drying and compression

Vision

Line cameras and existing inspection systems

Frames, defect maps, reviewed images

Pharma MES and eBR

Körber Werum PAS-X, Rockwell, Siemens Opcenter

Master batch records, campaigns, batch genealogy

LIMS and historians

Site LIMS, OSIsoft PI and equivalent historians

QC results, time-series backfill and replay

Identity and edge

Azure AD, Okta, LDAP · NVIDIA Jetson and on-prem GPU

SSO, RBAC, named approvers · inference at the line

See all integrations

Guardrails

An agent that can move a compression force needs a leash

Pildeon writes to production equipment in a GMP plant. Every capability is scoped to the approved design space, every write is policy-checked, every action is written to an immutable Part 11 audit trail the site owns, and no agent can release a batch.

  • Bounded action space. Each agent can only write to an explicit setpoint allow-list, inside the limits the site's validation approved.
  • Policy engine before every write. Autonomy level, design-space limits, batch state, model version and reviewer assignment are all evaluated before a setpoint moves.
  • Human-in-the-loop gates. Batch release, any move outside the design space and any change to a validated parameter wait for a named QA reviewer.
  • Immutable audit trail. Append-only, hash-chained, exportable, retained on the site's own storage, with reviewer identity and timestamp on every decision.
  • Hard fallback. Loss of the edge node, the network or the model returns the line to the equipment's last known-good recipe.
  • Tenant and IP isolation. Formulations, recipes and models never cross a customer boundary. Validated on-prem deployment is available for regulated producers.

Compliance posture

StandardScopeStatus
21 CFR Part 11Audit trail, e-signatures, records RUNNING Designed in from day one
GAMP 5Validation package for the platform RUNNING In progress, planned for the first design partners
cGMP · ICH Q8 to Q13Design space, QbD, continuous manufacturing RUNNING Design-aligned; site validation decides
SOC 2 Type ICloud control plane QUEUED Planned, first six months
SOC 2 Type IICloud control plane QUEUED Planned, months six to twelve
Data residencyValidated on-prem, air-gapped option SUCCEEDED Available by design

Read the security and validation overview

FAQ

Straight answers

The questions site directors, MSAT engineers and QA leads actually ask in the first meeting.

Yes, but only inside an explicit setpoint allow-list bounded by the design space your validation approved, and only at the autonomy level your site has set. Level 0 is shadow mode: Pildeon observes and predicts and writes nothing. Most sites spend their first weeks there.

Get started

Become a design partner

One line, one wedge, one baseline. Shadow mode costs you integration access and an engineer's time, not money.

Book a line review How it runs