What happens when MLR reviewers disagree on a parallel review?

Aproove processes documents running into the tens of thousands of pages, with deep zoom tile generation for high-resolution inspection at the level the work requires, configurable per-job DPI (up to 384 DPI for large drawings), and uniform-resolution mode for mixed-size proof sets. Smart change detection ensures new versions are created only when content actually changed.

Aproove enforces role-based access at multiple levels (system, project, task, schema, step) and supports multi-portal architecture for audience separation, so different audiences can be routed through different login portals against the same backend. Annotation Flow Management gives granular control over which groups see which markup within a single review step. Combined with on-premise deployment, customer-managed authentication, and identity enforcement, the platform supports the access control patterns regulated engineering organizations require. Specific classification handling is configured to your organization's policies.

Through decision-driven workflows. Each task has decision buttons that determine the next step, and workflows can route in parallel across engineer of record, checker, discipline reviewers, safety, and classification, with conflict managers resolving disagreement. More than 40 automated actions can fire on any decision, including handoff to downstream systems, generation of release records, and project kickoff in connected systems.

Yes. Aproove natively supports AutoCAD DWG and DXF with layer awareness (AutoCAD-generated layered PDFs are particularly well handled), plus PDF, TIFF (including 1-bit), PSD, the EPS family, and the broader range of formats engineering organizations actually use.

Configure any task decision to require re-authenticated email and password confirmation at the moment the reviewer makes the decision. Add two-factor authentication via PIN code where required. The signature is bound to the specific decision, the specific user, and the specific timestamp, captured directly in the audit trail.

Aproove supports more than 40 automated actions on workflow decisions, including third-party callbacks. Integration with ECM, MIS, and asset management systems is implemented through these actions or through Aproove's REST API. Customer ECM teams typically own the platform internally, with Aproove's reporting engine (including custom Crystal Reports for data dump exports) supporting the data extraction the organization requires.

Every action (markups, comments, decisions, version changes, approvals) is logged automatically with timestamps in the project history, exportable as CSV. Project Chat preserves originally posted content even after edits, for compliance reasons. The Export PDF function combines documents, markup, comments, and workflow history into a single submission-ready packet. Project history persists after project closure.

Yes. External users participate through controlled-permission tasks, with email whitelisting, identity enforcement, and team-restricted portal access available. Webhook-driven external project creation, protected by reCAPTCHA and optional 2FA email verification, lets contractors and external SMEs participate without licensed accounts when appropriate.

Aproove provides per-decision electronic signatures: a configured task decision can require re-authenticated email and password confirmation at the moment the user makes the decision. Two-factor authentication via PIN code can be added on top. Identity enforcement prevents tasks from being forwarded to a different user. The signature, the user, the decision, and the timestamp are bound together in the audit trail.

Yes. Aproove's Annotation Flow Management (AFM) controls which user groups see which notes inside a single step. Medical reviewers, regulatory, brand, agency, and external partners can each work in their own visibility scope, with group managers elevating notes between audiences as the review matures.

Aproove's Compare View supports comparing any localized variant against an approved master template, with pixel-level Highlight Differences and color-coded text comparison. Naming conventions can automate the master-to-variant matching, so the comparison runs every cycle without manual setup.

Yes. Every user and system action is logged with timestamps in the project history, exportable as CSV. Project Chat preserves originally posted content even after edits, for compliance reasons. The Export PDF function produces a single submission-ready packet containing the proof, every annotation, every comment, and the workflow history.

Yes. External partners can be added through controlled-permission tasks, and Aproove's webhook-driven project creation (protected by reCAPTCHA and optional 2FA email verification) lets agencies and KOLs participate without licensed accounts. Email whitelisting restricts participation to approved domains.

Aproove operates on HIPAA-compliant infrastructure, with ISO 27001 certified and SOC 2 attested platform controls, GDPR data processor obligations, tenant-isolated hosting, and encryption at rest and in transit. Role-based access, identity enforcement, and Private Task Chat help keep sensitive communications scoped to authorized audiences. For customers with stricter data residency or validation requirements, Aproove can be deployed on-premise or self-hosted in your own cloud tenant.

Yes. Aproove offers three deployment models: managed cloud, on-premise inside your data center, or self-hosted in your own cloud tenant. The deployment choice is independent of the feature set, so customers running Aproove on-premise or in their own tenant get the same workflow engine, e-signatures, AFM, and audit trail as managed cloud customers. Self-hosted and on-premise deployments are common for pharma customers requiring validated environments, regional data residency, customer-managed encryption keys, or air-gapped operation.

Yes, under governance. Aproove AI Agents operate inside the platform's permission and audit boundary. They are assistive, not autonomous, with human-in-the-loop decision authority, customer-controlled OpenAI keys, no external publishing capability, configurable enable/disable per project or asset type, and a full audit trail of every AI-assisted action. Customer data is not used to train shared models.

By running MLR review in parallel with a defined conflict-resolution path, eliminating sequential bottlenecks, automating routing through decision-driven workflows, surfacing only the changes that actually matter through pixel-level comparison, and capturing the audit trail live so no time is lost reconstructing it.

Every action taken on a piece of content is automatically captured with a timestamp: who reviewed it, what they approved or flagged, and which version was active at the time. That record is available for review or internal audit without any manual assembly.

Yes. The platform is built to scale with high project counts, variations, smart workflows, and page volumes.

Reviewers can compare any state-specific version directly against an approved master, with component-level change detection surfacing only what's different. Reviewers aren't re-reading content that hasn't changed.

Yes. Aproove supports secure file streaming, so teams can collaborate in real time. Aproove also supports parallel review tracks, so teams aren't waiting on each other sequentially unless sequencing is specifically required by your process.

Aproove integrates with DAMs, content management platforms, and enterprise systems. For Medicare plans already running complex tech stacks, it fits into existing infrastructure rather than replacing it.

Implementation timelines vary by configuration complexity, but plans with defined workflows can be operational well ahead of the production window. Implementation can happen as quickly as 1-2 weeks if your team is ready to move quickly.

Each variant moves through the same structured workflow, with metadata set at project creation defining the review path, stakeholders, and deadlines for that specific version. Reviewers can compare any variant against the approved master to confirm state-specific changes are the only differences.