RFI processing for CROs
Turn complex RFIs into
review‑ready responses in 21 mins.
Work from the sponsor’s Word or Excel file, reuse approved knowledge, route only what is missing, and review every answer with its source.
21 minutes: median time from upload to the first review-ready draft on live sponsor RFIs.
Running the RFI
The hard part is not answering the RFI.
It is running it.
Sponsor files cross functions, systems and experts. Proposal teams still have to know what is answered, what is missing and what can be trusted.
- 01 · Complex filesComplex filesPreserve the structure and context behind each question.
- 02 · Scattered knowledgeScattered knowledgeFind the current answer, not just a similar one.
- 03 · SME dependenciesSME dependenciesSend experts only the questions that need them.
- 04 · Submission controlSubmission controlKnow what is ready, reviewed and approved.
The Yendou solution
Yendou gives you accurate, commercially polished answers with zero chasing and no drafting from scratch.
- 01 · AccuracyAccurate. Sourced. Approved.Every answer drafted from approved knowledge, with its source attached, reviewed and approved.
- 02 · Client formatAny client format.Process complex Word, Excel and PDF files as the client sent them.
- 03 · Eliminate repetitionAlways pre-filled.Never answer the same question twice. Approved answers pre-fill the next RFI.
- 04 · No chasingNo chasing.Streamlined SME coordination: experts get only the gaps, on a deadline, where they work.
How it works
From the sponsor’s file to commercial sign-off in six steps.
-
New RFI↑ Upload fileTorsana_TOR-301_RFI.xlsx
Sponsor file · 3 sheetsDrop the sponsor’s Excel, Word or PDFReading…48 questions96 questions131 questions142 questions foundstructure kept01Upload.
Drop the sponsor’s Excel, Word or PDF file into Yendou. No template conversion or manual preparation.
-
QuestionsIntent · function
- Describe your site monitoring approach and visit cadenceClinical Operations
- Company ownership, headcount and officesCorporate
- Median time from site identification to FPIClinical Operations
- Screen failure rates in Phase 1 GI studiesData Sciences
142 of 142 assigned4 functions02Understand.
Parse the file, identify the sponsor’s intent and assign every question to the right function.
-
◫ Clinical Operations● Global+ Add labelAssign
The contracted activities for this program are performed from ✎ Insert here, and we can confirm the specific function carried out at each site once that list is finalized.
Each of those buildings is protected by ✎ Insert here, with ✎ Insert here and a visitor sign-in and escort policy.
Yendou AIdrafted this✎ Edit03Pre-draft.
Complete what approved knowledge can support, expose what is missing and leave experts only the precise input they must add.
-
Yendou assistant
Data Sciences · Expert reviewInput neededYendou · Question 14 of 48Screen failure rates in Phase 1 GI studiesGuided gap · Add the rate across your last three Phase 1 GI studies.Reply in Microsoft Teams➤04Route.
Map every question to its function, then route the unresolved gap to the right expert with context attached.
-
Answer · Q14Owner · A. LindqvistScreen failure in our Phase 1 GI programme runs at {value}18 to 22% across 11 studies.Source · Delivery record 2024 to 26Source · SOP-22 v2
Approve answerApproved05Review & edit.
The expert receives a prepared answer with the sponsor’s intent, the evidence and the gap. They review it where they already work.
-
In progress
21Central LabLibraryDo you have access to qualified laboratories capable of…Clinical OpsLibraryPlease indicate the number of trials managed for…In sign-off11Clinical OpsLibraryDo you have experience in conducting GCP PK trials?Clinical OpsLibraryDo you have experience in conducting GCP PK trials?Sent back0No questionsOfficial01Clinical OpsLibraryDo you have experience in conducting GCP PK trials?47 of 48 official48 of 48 official✓ Exported to the sponsor’s file06Sign-off & export.
Capture final approval, preserve ownership and evidence history and export the completed response in the sponsor’s original format.
ExportedEvery answer keeps its source, its owner and its approval. What approved knowledge cannot support is flagged as a gap, never invented.
01Expert input
Bring the question to the expert, not the expert to the question.
The question arrives where the expert already works. Yendou posts the question in Microsoft Teams, Slack or email, with the sponsor’s intent, the prepared answer and the exact gap to fill.
No login, no portal, no questionnaire to open.
02Commercial polish
Expert truth, in the sponsor’s language.
Yendou rewrites the expert’s reply into proposal-ready prose: sponsor-facing tone, the intent answered first, terminology consistent across every answer.
The facts stay the expert’s. Every edit sits beside the original.
escalation runs site QA > country QA lead > global QA within 24h. last inspection readiness review March 2026 (decentralized onc study), no findings
Quality oversight for decentralized studies follows a defined escalation path from site QA to the country QA lead and to global QA within 24 hours. Our most recent inspection-readiness review, completed in March 2026 for a decentralized oncology study, closed with no findings.
- Sponsor-facing tone
- Intent answered first
- Terminology consistent across 48 answers
- Facts unchanged
03Understand what converts
Commercial intelligence should produce commercial results.
Know what converts, what slows the team down and what should be reused on the next opportunity.
- 142
questions - 71%
answered from approved knowledge - 41
routed to 7 experts - 1.8 d
median expert turnaround
“The value isn’t just generating an answer. It’s using deterministic AI to ensure no hallucination, and to identify where the gaps are and where experts are needed. Yendou knows what we’ve answered before, shows where it came from, and brings in our experts only when their input is actually needed.”
“What impressed us was that Yendou could work with the RFI as we actually receive it. We don’t have to rebuild a complex sponsor workbook just to make the software work.”
“The Teams integration is exactly the kind of thing that makes this workable at scale. Experts can respond where they already work, without logging into another platform, and the proposal team spends far less time chasing people.”
Privacy
- 01
Secure by design.
End-to-end encryption, role-based access, and secure data handling.
- 02
Recognized standards.
We operate to SOC 2 and ISO 27001:2022 standards.
- 03
GDPR native.
GDPR native by default, with EU-built infrastructure.
- 04
Private AI.
Nothing you put in trains a model anyone else can touch.
- 05
Audit ready.
Every answer traces to its source, owner and approval.
API. MCP.Bring Yendou into your AI tools.
Connect Claude, ChatGPT or your internal systems to Yendou. Launch an RFI, read drafts, approve answers and export the response, without copying information between tools.
Questions
Before you send us an RFI.
- How much setup is there?
- None to start. Upload the sponsor’s Word, Excel or PDF file as you received it. Yendou reads the structure, assigns the questions and drafts from whatever approved knowledge you already have.
- What happens to our existing answer library?
- It becomes the approved knowledge Yendou drafts from. Every answer it reuses carries its source, so your team can see what was reused and where it came from.
- Do our experts need a Yendou login?
- No. They receive the question, the sponsor’s intent and the prepared answer in Microsoft Teams, Slack or email, and reply there.
- Who owns the knowledge afterwards?
- You do. Approved answers, their sources and their approval history stay in your workspace. Nothing you put in trains a model anyone else can touch.
The same workflow runs quality, security and vendor questionnaires. Start with the sponsor RFI.
One RFI
Send us one sponsor RFI. We return the draft.
Your file, your approved knowledge, our workflow. See what review-ready looks like on your own questions before you decide anything.
Send an RFI