Section 3-4 draws a hard boundary around the materials a representative may use. Any material or tool that has not been confirmed as appropriate through the Section 2-3 supervisory-department review is prohibited—without exception—from any information provision activity. The prohibition is absolute: "the content is accurate" and "it is a published paper" do not create exceptions.

The logic of this provision: The value of the review system lies in quality assurance that does not depend on any individual representative's judgement. No matter how carefully a representative selects a document on their own, without the review process that document cannot be guaranteed to meet the standards the GL requires.

01The practical scope of "only reviewed materials may be used"

The prohibition covers situations including the following. (1) A representative brings self-prepared slides or handouts to a visit. (2) They distribute copies of pre-approval conference presentations, preprint papers, or unpublished posters. (3) They provide translations of foreign-language studies or data from overseas trials that have not passed the review. (4) They re-edit excerpts from reviewed materials and present them in a new context. All are prohibited for the same reason: the Section 2-3 review has not been completed for them.

Even if a physician asks to see "the latest papers in this area," there is no exception. The representative may only provide literature information that has passed the review. Passing along an unreviewed paper "just for reference" is equally prohibited under this provision.

So what: For the representative, the line between "usable" and "not usable" materials is determined solely by whether the review has been passed—not by the accuracy of the content. Accuracy is not a justification for using an unreviewed item.

So why: A representative individually deciding "this paper is reliable" and the supervisory department reviewing against established criteria are entirely different processes. Individual judgement cannot rule out biased literature selection, distorted interpretation, or misreading of context. The review process is the filter that removes those risks, and excluding unreviewed materials preserves the uniform quality of what reaches healthcare professionals.

02Situations where unreviewed material use is most likely — and what to do

Use of unreviewed materials often arises not from bad intent but from circumstances like these.

Scenario 1: Responding to a sophisticated clinical question. When a reviewed material does not contain the answer, a representative may search for and bring their own literature. This often stems from genuine diligence, but under the GL it constitutes prohibited use of an unreviewed item. The correct response is: "I will verify and provide you with reviewed information," and then to complete the internal process before supplying anything.

Scenario 2: Immediately after a medical congress or research meeting. When new data on a company product are presented publicly, the impulse to reach physicians quickly is understandable. Nevertheless, until that data has passed the review, representatives may not use it.

Scenario 3: Digital content circulation. Forwarding research data, press reports, or social-media posts about a product to a physician by email or messaging app is also prohibited, since none of it has been reviewed.

So what: The prohibition applies regardless of the representative's good intentions. Genuinely trying to serve a physician's information needs can inadvertently breach the GL. Being able to explain to a physician why certain information cannot be provided immediately is itself part of professional competence.

So why: The time cost of the review process is the price of quality assurance. The competitive advantage of delivering unreviewed data quickly is outweighed—in the long term—by the patient-safety and reputational benefits of an environment where only reviewed, accurate information circulates. Speed at the expense of review integrity is not a trade-off the GL permits.

03The relationship between Section 3-4 and Section 3-2 — a two-layer defence

Section 3-2 imposes the positive obligation to "carry out activities in accordance with reviewed materials." Section 3-4 imposes the negative obligation to "use no materials other than those that have passed the review." The two are complementary. Section 3-2 regulates the direction of conduct (towards reviewed materials); Section 3-4 regulates its scope (by excluding everything unreviewed).

For example, a representative who uses reviewed materials throughout a visit but then hands over an unreviewed journal copy as "supplementary reading" appears to satisfy Section 3-2 on the surface, but clearly violates Section 3-4. The two provisions must be read together: satisfying one does not remove the obligation under the other.

So what: Representatives are required to achieve dual compliance: centre all activities on reviewed materials, and add nothing from outside that reviewed set. "I also used reviewed materials" does not excuse "I also used unreviewed materials."

So why: Partial compliance creates gaps in quality assurance. If some of what a physician receives during a visit is unreviewed, the physician may reasonably—but incorrectly—assume that all of it has passed the same quality check. Ensuring that every item in the room is reviewed preserves the trust that allows healthcare professionals to rely on the information they receive.