Medical Representative Detailing and Promotional Claim Compliance Assessment for Pharma Field Sales and First-Line ManagersThe dangerous claim is not the one you do not know. It is the one you are sure of, and wrong about.
Forty-two short exercises for medical representatives, field trainers and first-line managers in India. Twelve print an extract of the approved prescribing information and one thing a representative said in a call, and ask for the chance in 100 that it is within the promotional code, so the report can tell how often you were right from how well you knew when you were not. Twelve put you in the call with the requests the code governs: twenty sample packs, a speaker's wife's ticket, a cash contribution, a rash mentioned in passing, a competitor's untrue claim, a manager asking for three calls that never happened. The report is an escape ladder: five real controls in your own process, every error pinned to the one that would have caught it. Rs 999, paid before you sit.
The first detailing assessment that scores how sure you were, not only whether you were right
The Medical Representative Detailing and Promotional Claim Compliance Assessment is a thirty-five-minute applied skill assessment for pharma field sales in India. It measures whether a representative can tell a claim the approved information supports from one that goes beyond it, whether they know when they are unsure, and what the promotional code permits them to give, say and do.
Compliance quizzes score accuracy, and accuracy is the wrong quantity. A representative who gets a claim wrong and knows it checks the aid, asks the manager, or says nothing. The representative who gets it wrong and is sure of it says it to a prescriber. So twelve of the exercises here ask for a probability, not an answer: the chance in 100 that a printed statement is within the code. The report then separates three things a single score fuses: whether you could tell the two kinds of claim apart, whether your sureness matched your hit rate, and in which direction it missed. A person can be well calibrated and unable to discriminate, or sharp and over-sure, and those need different corrections.
The code is the construct, so the content is specific to India and says so. It is anchored on the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024, issued by the Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India: claims and comparisons, the words safe and new, promotional material, medical representatives, brand reminders and samples, continuing medical education, and the relationship with healthcare professionals. The adverse-event expectation is drawn from the pharmacovigilance guidance for marketing authorisation holders. Both are published government instruments, cited factually; no endorsement by or affiliation with any department or industry association is implied, and this is not a certification under the code. Every claim is judged against approved information printed in the exercise, so nothing depends on product knowledge or on any company's internal procedure.
The report is built as an escape ladder. Five real downstream controls in a representative's own process run as a spine down the page: your own check against the approved aid, the first-line manager's joint call, the medical and regulatory review of material, the company's compliance function, and the external complaint. Each rung names the control, never the consequence, and carries a declared multiplier printed above the spine with its reasoning, because a cost ladder is a value judgement and the page says so. Every error you made is pinned to the rung where it would have been caught, so the page is ordered by escape distance rather than by topic, and a rung with none of your errors is drawn empty rather than left out, because the shape of the ladder is the finding. On the probes, each pin also carries the sureness you gave it, so a confident error on a deep rung is visibly the heaviest thing on the page.
The headline is the escape index, normalised against the whole form and then corrected against the respondent who answers the way representatives typically answer, so zero is ordinary, one hundred is a clean sitting and a negative figure means your errors reached further than ordinary ones do. It carries its 68 and 95 per cent bands, drawn on the scale and written in words, with the raw index beside it. Beside the ladder sits the calibration panel: a reliability diagram, reliability and resolution printed as two separate figures, the direction of confidence as its own mark and word, and the three fixed habits, always within, always outside, always fifty, scored on your own probes so you can see that none of them pays.
Below them: the four parts, each corrected against the ordinary respondent with no total across them; the strength paired with what it costs; one boxed if-then sentence drawn from your own direction of error; the movement a re-sitting in three months would have to clear to count as real change; the reliability table with every refusal printed; the two spoken detailing rounds, graded on the transcript only and reported apart; and the plain list of what the report does not say. It does not score product knowledge, therapeutic science, selling skill, or how you sound, and it does not say whether you have ever broken the code.
What you walk away with
Where each of your errors would have been caught, weighted by five declared multipliers and normalised against the whole form, then corrected against the ordinary respondent so zero is ordinary and one hundred is clean. The 68 per cent band is a solid block, the 95 per cent band an outlined box, and the raw index sits beside it, smaller.
From twelve probes that ask for a chance in 100 rather than an answer: whether your numbers were right in size, whether your high numbers went to the claims that really were within the code, and whether you ran over-confident or under-confident. Three figures, each on its own, with a reliability diagram and a bin table beneath it.
A table ordered by escape distance, furthest first: the exercise, what was said or chosen, the rung, the multiplier, and on every probe the chance you gave. An error made with 75 or more in 100 of sureness is marked, because a confident error on a deep rung is the one nobody in the company sees coming.
Claims within the approved information; samples, gifts, hospitality and sponsorship; unapproved indications and adverse events in the call; representative conduct and competitor claims. Each drawn against the ordinary respondent with its own band and placement; a part too thin to carry a figure carries a placement word with the reason printed where the figure would have gone.
One boxed if-then sentence drawn from your own direction of error: a check made a condition of speaking if you ran over-confident, a supportable claim said plainly if you ran under-confident, a fixed first sentence if your errors sat on the deepest rung. Beside it, the movement a re-sitting after three months would have to exceed on each figure to count as real change.
A prescriber asks you to correct a colleague's claim, and asks for a dose outside the indication. Each answer is recorded, transcribed and graded on the transcript against four content criteria, and printed apart from every figure. Tone, pace, warmth and accent are not scored, and a round nobody has graded yet is printed as deferred, never as a zero.
Inside your report
Illustrative sample — your report is generated from your own responses.
x1 your own check · x3 manager’s joint call · x8 material review · x20 compliance function · x40 external complaint
A value judgement, not a measurement: each step roughly triples with the number of people a correction has to reach. Printed so it can be disagreed with.
About two chances in three that a re-sitting lands between 55 and 68; nineteen in twenty between 49 and 74. Nothing in the sitting reached anybody: the ladder prices detection position, not outcome.
| Rung | Pinned | Sure | x |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | “Off the record, a lot of psychiatrists use it for anxiety in teenagers” · Unapproved indications and adverse events in the call | ◆ 80 in 100 | x40 |
| 4 | Field judgement: the speaker’s wife’s ticket · Samples, gifts, hospitality and sponsorship | — | x20 |
| 3 | ○ empty: none of your errors here | — | x8 |
| 1 | “It is completely safe. Patients do not get side effects on it.” · Claims within the approved information | ◆ 85 in 100 | x1 |
How to read it: the page is ordered by how far each error would have travelled before a control caught it, not by topic. A rung with none of your errors stays on the page, empty, because the shape is the finding. A probe pinned with 75 or more in 100 of sureness is marked ◆: a confident error on a deep rung is the thing this instrument exists to find.
How far the chance you gave sat from the share that really were within the code, bin by bin.
Whether your high numbers went to the claims that really were within the code.
A sharp eye that over-states it: you tell the two kinds of claim apart better than most, and you are surer than your hit rate earns.
| Chance given | Probes | Actually within | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 to 20 | 3 | 0 in 100 | ◆ over-confident here |
| 21 to 40 | 1 | 0 in 100 | ◆ over-confident here |
| 41 to 60 | 0 | — | no probe in this bin |
| 61 to 80 | 4 | 50 in 100 | ◆ over-confident here |
| 81 to 100 | 4 | 75 in 100 | ◆ over-confident here |
| always 85 in 100 · always 15 in 100 · always 50 | -54 · -54 · -3 | ||
How to read it: three figures, each on its own. A person can be well calibrated and unable to tell the two kinds of claim apart, or sharp and over-sure; those need different corrections, and one number would hide which you need. The panel refuses to print anything from fewer than eight probes.
Built for
- Medical representatives in India who want to know which of their own claims would be caught, where, and how sure they were when they made them
- First-line and area managers who coach on joint calls and need one specific change per representative with the evidence beside it, rather than a code lecture
- Field trainers and compliance teams who need a baseline before and after a code briefing, with a printed threshold for what counts as real change
- Candidates for a field-sales role in pharma who want to show a hiring manager that they know where the limits are, and know when they are unsure
Find out which of your claims would have been caught, and how sure you were
42 exercises across seven formats · about 35 minutes · Rs 999 in India inclusive of GST, or US$9.99 elsewhere, paid before the sitting; 26 credits for organisations. The report is an escape ladder with both bands, a calibration panel with three things never combined, four parts, one boxed change, and two spoken rounds apart. Sit it again in three months.
₹999 (incl. GST) · assessment and full report, nothing further to pay
Frequently asked questions
It measures whether a medical representative can tell a claim the approved prescribing information supports from one that goes beyond it, whether they know which of their own calls they are unsure about, and what the Indian promotional code permits on samples, gifts, hospitality, travel, continuing education, support to a prescriber, unapproved indications, adverse events mentioned in a call, and a competitor's untrue claim. It does not measure product knowledge, therapeutic-area science, selling skill, or how you sound, and it does not say whether you have ever broken the code. Every claim is judged against approved information printed in the exercise, and no exercise depends on any company's internal procedure.
Because the dangerous representative is not the one who does not know; it is the one who is confident and wrong. A probability lets the report separate three things a single accuracy score fuses: whether you could tell the two kinds of claim apart, whether your sureness matched your hit rate, and in which direction it missed. Those are printed as reliability, resolution and direction, each on its own and never combined, with a reliability diagram beneath them. Twelve probes feed the panel, half within the code and half outside, so always answering within and always answering outside both land at or below the ordinary respondent, and the page shows those habits scored on your own probes.
No. Nothing in a sitting reaches anybody; a sitting is not a working day. The ladder prices where each of your errors would have been caught: by your own check against the approved aid, by your manager on a joint call, by the review of promotional material, by the company's compliance function, or only by an outside complaint. Each rung carries a declared multiplier printed above the spine with its reasoning, because a cost ladder is a value judgement and the report says so. The headline is corrected against the respondent who answers the way representatives typically answer, so zero is ordinary and one hundred is a clean sitting, and it carries its 68 and 95 per cent bands drawn and written. An over-cautious call, such as a supportable claim withheld, carries no rung, because nothing escapes.
The pharmacovigilance assessment measures the safety case after the event has reached the safety function: seriousness, causality, completeness and follow-up, for drug-safety staff. This one measures the representative in the call: whether a reaction mentioned in passing gets collected and passed on at all, and whether a claim stays within the approved information. A sales skills test measures discovery, objection handling and closing. This measures the limits on what may be claimed and given, and whether you know where your own certainty runs out. A strong seller can score poorly here, and that would be the finding. The report names each neighbour on the page.
About thirty-five minutes for forty-two exercises across seven formats. The price is Rs 999 in India inclusive of GST, or US$9.99 elsewhere, paid before the sitting starts; organisations pay 26 credits. Two spoken detailing rounds are recorded, transcribed and graded on the transcript only, against four content criteria, and reported apart from every figure; nothing about tone, pace, warmth or accent is scored, and a round nobody has graded yet is printed as deferred, never as a zero. A sitting with fewer than twenty-four of the forty keyed exercises answered is not reported: the refusal is printed where the ladder would be. No percentile appears anywhere, and there is no pass mark, because this is an assessment and not a certification under the code.
Each one takes a single capability, puts you inside the situations where it is actually tested, and scores your choices against published evidence — with a report designed for that capability alone, not a template. They span hiring, compliance, education, operations and personal skill.
Browse the catalogue →Methodology: Forty-two original exercises across seven formats: twelve calibration probes on an estimation slider, each printing an extract of the approved prescribing information or detailing aid and one thing a representative said or did, and asking for the chance in 100 that it is within the code; twelve scenario-judgement exercises with four graded options on the field practices the code governs; six single-choice exercises on brand reminders, samples, continuing medical education, comparisons and requests for benefits; four true-or-false claims about the code's limits; three select-every-line exercises on permitted support, adverse-event handling and in-call conduct; three match-the-following exercises pairing statements, items and situations to what the code requires; and two spoken detailing rounds recorded, transcribed and rubric-graded on the transcript only, reported apart from every keyed figure. DECLARED RESPONSE INSTRUCTION: one instruction for the whole instrument, and it is a KNOWLEDGE instruction: what the code permits or requires, and whether a given statement is within it. No exercise asks what the respondent would do, and no self-report is mixed in. CONSTRUCT STATEMENT: this measures whether a medical representative can tell a claim the approved material supports from one that goes beyond it, and whether they know which of their own calls they are unsure about; plus the field practices the Indian promotional code governs: samples, gifts, hospitality, travel, sponsorship of continuing education, support to a prescriber, what may be said about an unapproved indication, what to do with an adverse event mentioned in a call, and what to do when a competitor's representative has said something untrue. It does not measure product knowledge for its own sake, therapeutic-area science, selling skill, spoken delivery, voice or accent, or whether the respondent has ever broken the code. The code is the construct, so the content is India-specific on purpose and says so; no exercise depends on any company's internal procedure, and the approved information every claim is judged against is printed in the exercise. FRAMEWORK ANCHOR: the Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 (UCPMP 2024), Department of Pharmaceuticals, Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Government of India, issued 12 March 2024: clause 1 (promotion consistent with the marketing approval; information balanced, verifiable and substantiable on request), clause 2 (claims and comparisons; the words safe and new; no disparagement; no brand name of another company without consent), clause 3 (textual and audio-visual promotional material), clause 4 (medical representatives: no inducement or subterfuge to gain an interview; the company responsible for its representatives), clause 5 (brand reminders: informational items up to Rs 1,000 per item; free samples only to prescribers, at most twelve packs per drug per practitioner per year, the smallest pack, marked, recorded, no hypnotics, sedatives or tranquillisers, and at most two per cent of domestic sales), clause 6 (continuing medical education: no foreign venues, named organisers, published on the company website), clause 8 (relationship with healthcare professionals: no gifts, no travel or hospitality except for a speaker, no cash under any pretext), and clauses 9 to 13 (the ethics committee, complaints, penalties and appeal). It is a published government instrument, free to cite; no endorsement by or affiliation with the Department of Pharmaceuticals or any pharmaceutical industry association is implied. The adverse-event expectation is anchored on the Pharmacovigilance Guidance Document for Marketing Authorisation Holders of Pharmaceutical Products in India (Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission, Pharmacovigilance Programme of India, version 2, 2024) and the pharmacovigilance obligations of the marketing authorisation holder under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as amended by GSR 287(E) of 8 March 2016: events from all sources, including company employees, are collected and forwarded, and seriousness and causality are the safety function's call rather than the representative's. SCORING DESIGN, C9 calibration scoring with the D23 escape ladder as the headline: every probe yields a probability p in [0,1] and an outcome o in {0,1}; the Brier score B = mean (p - o)^2 is decomposed by five confidence bins into reliability, resolution and uncertainty, and reliability and resolution are reported SEPARATELY, because a person can be well calibrated and useless, or discriminating and over-confident. The over- or under-confidence direction (mean confidence in the call made minus the share of calls right) is reported apart from discrimination and never netted. The calibration figure printed is a Brier skill score against the respondent drawing each probe's answer from its declared value_base_rate, so zero is the ordinary respondent and one hundred is a perfect sitting. The escape index is normalised against the FORM: every answered exercise contributes its worst reachable rung's multiplier to the denominator, each error is pinned to the rung of the first control whose job is to catch an error of that kind, and the headline is chance-corrected: vsOrdinary = 100 x (index - priorIndex) / (1 - priorIndex), where priorIndex is the index of a respondent answering every exercise at its declared marginals. An over-cautious call (a supportable statement withheld, a permitted sample refused) is an error in the competency figures and carries no rung, because nothing escapes. Every other exercise is corrected against its declared marginal (option_base_rate, select_prior, match_prior or value_base_rate), never a uniform draw. Reliability is McDonald's omega in its Spearman-Brown form from the answered count and an assumed inter-item correlation of .26, printed as an assumption; every figure carries its SEM and its 68 and 95 per cent bands from a declared modelled standard deviation; a competency under eight answered exercises or omega under .70 unrounded carries a placement word and no number. A sitting with fewer than twenty-four of the forty keyed exercises answered is refused and the refusal is printed where the ladder would be. PLATFORM GAP: the pipeline row asked for a spoken role play. The platform records, transcribes and rubric-grades the transcript; no score for pronunciation, pace, warmth or tone reaches this builder, none is claimed, and a spoken round nobody has graded prints DEFERRED in words, never a zero. SOURCES: Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India, Uniform Code for Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices, 2024 (UCPMP 2024) (F.No.31026/23/2022-Policy, 12 March 2024); Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission, Pharmacovigilance Guidance Document for Marketing Authorisation Holders of Pharmaceutical Products in India, version 2 (2024); Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, GSR 287(E) of 8 March 2016 amending the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 (pharmacovigilance system of the marketing authorisation holder); World Health Organization, Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion (World Health Assembly resolution WHA41.17, 1988), which clause 1.1 of the code adopts; Medical Council of India, Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, regulation 6.8 on the relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, which the code names as the fallback; Brier, Verification of forecasts expressed in terms of probability (Monthly Weather Review, 1950); Murphy, A new vector partition of the probability score (Journal of Applied Meteorology, 1973), for the reliability, resolution and uncertainty decomposition; Lichtenstein, Fischhoff and Phillips, Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980 (in Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky, Judgment under Uncertainty, Cambridge University Press, 1982); Moore and Healy, The trouble with overconfidence (Psychological Review, 2008), for the three kinds of overconfidence and why the direction is reported apart; Reason, Human Error (Cambridge University Press, 1990), for the layered-defence model behind a ladder of controls ordered by where an error is caught; Gollwitzer and Sheeran, Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta-analysis (Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2006), for the if-then form of the one change; McDaniel, Hartman, Whetzel and Grubb, Situational judgment tests, response instructions, and validity: a meta-analysis (Personnel Psychology, 2007), for declaring one response instruction; Haladyna, Downing and Rodriguez, A review of multiple-choice item-writing guidelines (Applied Measurement in Education, 2002), for cue control; McDonald, Test Theory: A Unified Treatment (Erlbaum, 1999), for omega. All forty-two exercises are original works written for this instrument; no item from any published questionnaire, training programme or commercial compliance product is reproduced or adapted; no pharmaceutical company, brand, product or vendor is named anywhere; no competitor is named; and the instrument is not affiliated with or endorsed by any body named above.