Most staffing partners send you CVs filtered on keywords "MDR," "technical file," "4 years" and leave the actual judgement to your hiring manager. That's why your team burns hours screening people who shouldn't have reached the panel. We work differently because we do this work ourselves handling Class A, B, C and D manufacturing licences, MD-41 filings, EU Authorised Representative appointments, and EUDAMED.

So when we screen a regulatory affairs candidate, we're asking from inside the job: have they actually built a technical file, defended a risk classification, or seen a CDSCO query through to resolution? Those are questions a keyword filter can't ask and a non-domain recruiter can't score. That gives Terra a shorter shortlist, faster closure, and fewer early exits because we screen for scope upfront, not at week six. They know the difference between a finding that survives a reviewer and one that gets torn apart, and they say so before it reaches the client. Which is why hiring for it is deceptively hard a writing sample tells you almost nothing; plenty of people write cleanly and reason badly. What you need to test is clinical literacy, research rigour, and the nerve to push back even when the deadline is tomorrow. That combination is rare, and we help you find it.