# Temperature excursion during transport: who decides, and on what evidence?

> The release/reject decision belongs to the MAH and its Qualified Person, not the carrier. The evidence a disposition needs, why the technical agreement matters, and why fast evidence beats a fast shortcut.

- Type: Article · Jul 2026 · 6 pages · 6 min read
- Author: Adam Karpiński, Synlogica
- Canonical: https://synlogica.ai/resources/excursion-during-transport/

## 1. The short answer

When a temperature excursion happens in transit, the **quality decision** — release, quarantine or reject — belongs to the Marketing Authorisation Holder and its ** Qualified Person (QP)**, assessed against the product's stability data. The carrier or 3PL is responsible for *maintaining* conditions and *reporting* the deviation, but not for deciding disposition. Confusing those two roles is where excursions go wrong.

**Bottom line** The carrier owns the transport controls and the report; the QP owns the decision. Both are written into the quality/technical agreement. An excursion is a shared event with a single, clearly-owned decision.

## 2. Who decides — and who doesn't

Under EU GDP, the wholesale distributor must maintain the required conditions during transport and immediately flag any deviation. But the **disposition decision** is a GMP/quality act reserved for the authorised person. A logistics provider — however capable — can quarantine and escalate; it cannot release. This split exists because releasing a batch requires access to, and judgement over, the product's stability data and marketing authorisation, which sit with the MAH, not the carrier.

## 3. The evidence a decision needs

A defensible transit-excursion disposition rests on the same evidence set as any excursion decision:

- The **actual logger trace** — start/end, minimum/maximum, total time out of range — with the logger's calibration status.

- The **registered storage condition** and the size and direction of the delta.

- The **stability data** the disposition relies on, cited specifically (study, timepoint, condition) — not a general reassurance.

- A **signed, dated disposition** by the QP with rationale (ALCOA+), reproducible by another reviewer from the same inputs.

"The average was in range" is not evidence — it can hide a brief but disqualifying spike or freeze. The profile, against the product's kinetics, is the assessment.

## 4. Why the technical agreement matters

The quality/technical agreement between the MAH and the carrier is where the roles are made explicit: who monitors, who reports and how fast, who quarantines, and who decides. When an excursion happens and this is vague, hours are lost arguing about responsibility while the product sits in an uncertain state. A clear agreement turns an excursion from a scramble into a defined procedure.

## 5. Why speed is a quality issue, not just a logistics one

Every hour a batch spends in quarantine awaiting a disposition is cost, risk and sometimes further exposure. Yet rushing to release without the stability evidence is the worse failure. The resolution is not to decide faster by cutting corners, but to make the *evidence assembly* faster: reconstruct the profile, pull the relevant stability data, compute the impact, and present a complete, signed package — so the QP's decision is quick because the evidence is ready, not because it was skipped.

That is what [Synlogica Terminus](https://synlogica.ai/) (Terminus M4, Quality) is built to do: it turns the logger file into a sealed, reproducible decision package — profile, stability comparison, stated confidence — in under a minute, and leaves the binding release call to the QP. The full anatomy of that package is in the [excursion decision package white paper](https://synlogica.ai/resources/excursion-decision-package/).

## 6. FAQ

### Who is responsible for a temperature excursion in transit — the carrier or the MAH?

Accountability for the quality decision stays with the MAH and its QP; the carrier maintains conditions and reports deviations under the technical agreement. The QP decides disposition; the carrier owns the transport controls.

### Can a wholesaler or 3PL release the product after an excursion?

No. A logistics provider can quarantine and report, but the release/reject disposition is a quality decision for the authorised person (QP). The technical agreement should make that split explicit.

### What evidence is needed to release a batch after a transit excursion?

The actual logger trace (with calibration status), the registered storage condition and the delta, the stability data cited specifically, and a signed, dated disposition with rationale (ALCOA+) — reproducible by another reviewer.

## 7. References

- EU Guidelines on Good Distribution Practice (2013/C 343/01), Chapter 9 — Transportation; Chapter 7 — Outsourced Activities.

- EU GMP — responsibilities of the Qualified Person (Annex 16).

- ICH Q1A(R2) — Stability Testing; USP <1079> — Storage and Transportation.