Regional Signature Design

The Regional Signature Design explains how neighbouring SIRIAM formulations differ while remaining part of one continuous platform.

Chapter 16 identifies the position of each Application Field.Chapter 17 compares the regional design logic behind those fields.

It therefore does not repeat:

exact magistral quantities.

The purpose of this chapter is to define the distinct functional identity of each regional formulation.

• the complete anatomy of each region;
• the DUO principle;
• the Structural Matrix;
• the final ingredient lists;

All regional SIRIAM formulations share:

standardized pharmaceutical development principles.

Regional formulations differ through their:

Regional Signature Matrix.

Regional differentiation is therefore deliberate and limited.

The objective is not to create entirely unrelated products, but to create regional variations of one coherent neurodermal platform.

• one platform architecture;
• a common vehicle strategy;
• a comparable structural foundation;
• the Release–Integration–Maintenance sequence;
• metameric orientation;
• Application Field;
• Neurodermal Application Zones;
• regional tissue environment;
• intended functional direction;

Each Regional Signature is developed through the following sequence:

Metameric Foundation

↓

Regional Tissue Environment

↓

Application Field

↓

Neurodermal Application Zones

↓

Functional Requirement

↓

Regional Signature Profile

↓

Regional Signature Ingredients

Ingredient selection occurs only after the regional profile has been defined.

The SIRIAM neurodermal axis is framed by two polar Application Fields:

OAA

Superior Cranio-Cervical Pole

↕ Continuous Regional Axis ↕

SX

Inferior Sacrococcygeal Pole

These regions are not identical opposites. They represent different anatomical and functional boundaries of the platform.

OAA

OAA is characterized by:

close integration of posterior, lateral and anterior cervical application zones.

Its regional profile therefore prioritizes:

precise rather than extensive application.

SX

SX is characterized by:

regional relationship with lower lumbosacral fields.

Its regional profile prioritizes:

integration across sacral and pelvic transition zones.

• high anatomical density;
• cranio-cervical transition;
• compact Neurodermal Application Zones;
• sensitivity of the upper cervical field;
• controlled initial intensity;
• tolerability in a potentially reactive field;
• transition toward integration without excessive stimulation;
• broader sacral surface anatomy;
• caudal completion of the spinal axis;
• pelvic and sacrococcygeal continuity;
• broad regional application;
• continuity with Plexus Lumbosacralis;
• support of the lower neurodermal axis;

The cervical platform consists of three interacting but distinct regional identities:

CTO.

They overlap anatomically but do not serve the same Application Field.

17.5.1 Phrenic Signature

Regional orientation

Anterior and anterolateral cervical region, principally C3–C5.

Signature identity

Anterior Cervical Regulation Field

Design characteristics

Phrenic is designed around:

continuity with OAA, CTO and Plexus Brachialis.

The formulation should remain appropriate for a relatively delicate anatomical region.

Its regional design therefore favours:

tolerability with repeated anterior cervical application.

Distinction from OAA

OAA is primarily cranio-cervical and multi-zonal.

Phrenic is principally anterior cervical and transitional.

Distinction from CTO

CTO is centred on the lower cervical and upper thoracic junction.

Phrenic is centred more anteriorly and superiorly.

Distinction from Plexus Brachialis

Phrenic remains regionally focused on the cervical field.

Plexus Brachialis extends from the cervical region toward the upper limb.

17.5.2 Plexus Brachialis Signature

Regional orientation

C5–T1 with extension toward the shoulder and upper limb.

Signature identity

Cervico-Peripheral Distribution Field

Design characteristics

Plexus Brachialis is the most explicitly distribution-oriented cervical formulation.

Its design must accommodate:

broader application surfaces than OAA or Phrenic.

Its regional formulation profile therefore favours:

a clear distinction between regional application and treatment of an individual nerve.

Distinction from CTO

CTO remains centred on the cervico-thoracic junction.

Plexus Brachialis projects laterally and distally toward the upper limb.

Distinction from KORR

Plexus Brachialis addresses a broader regional field.

KORR is reserved for a more isolated segmental or dermatomal trajectory.

17.5.3 CTO Signature

Regional orientation

Lower cervical to upper thoracic junction.

Signature identity

Cervico-Thoracic Transition Field

Design characteristics

CTO occupies a mechanically and anatomically important transition between the mobile cervical region and the more stable thoracic region.

Its regional design prioritizes:

differentiation from the anterior emphasis of Phrenic.

CTO functions as a regional bridge rather than as an upper-limb formulation.

Comparative position

OAA

Cranio-cervical

↓

Phrenic

Anterior cervical

↔

Plexus Brachialis

Cervico-peripheral

↓

CTO

Cervico-thoracic

• Phrenic;
• Plexus Brachialis;
• the anterior cervical application surface;
• the cervico-respiratory transition;
• the relationship between cervical segmental orientation and anterior neck tissues;
• moderate spreadability;
• controlled intensity;
• limited local residue;
• a proximal cervical application field;
• shoulder-girdle transition;
• possible longitudinal extension along the arm;
• sufficient glide;
• reliable spreading over longer trajectories;
• compatibility with both proximal and distal application;
• continuity across the cervico-thoracic junction;
• posterior and posterolateral application;
• compatibility with shoulder-girdle transition zones;

The principal central trunk formulation is Plexus Solaris.

It differs from CTO and TLO because it combines posterior thoracic orientation with an anterior epigastric Application Field.

17.6.1 Plexus Solaris Signature

Regional orientation

Principally T5–T9.

Signature identity

Central Trunk Integration Field

Design characteristics

Plexus Solaris is defined by a dual-surface architecture:

anterior epigastric field.

This makes it distinct from transition formulations that are predominantly spinal or paraspinal.

Its design profile therefore supports:

a formulation identity that remains distinct from lower thoraco-lumbar products.

Distinction from CTO

CTO is a superior transition field at the cervico-thoracic junction.

Plexus Solaris is a central thoracic and upper-abdominal field.

Distinction from TLO

TLO is centred lower, around the thoraco-lumbar junction.

Plexus Solaris is centred around the mid-thoracic and epigastric region.

SIRIAM Conceptual Model

Within the SIRIAM architecture, Plexus Solaris acts as a central interface between posterior segmental prioritization and anterior trunk application.

This is a conceptual formulation model and does not imply direct topical delivery to the coeliac plexus.

• posterior thoracic segmental field;
• application over the central trunk;
• adequate spread across both posterior and anterior surfaces;
• compatibility with the epigastric region;

The lower trunk contains three strongly overlapping but functionally distinct fields:

Plexus Lumbosacralis.

Their differences depend less on strict segmental borders than on the direction of regional extension.

17.7.1 TLO Signature

Regional orientation

Principally T10–L2.

Signature identity

Thoraco-Lumbar Transition Field

Design characteristics

TLO is centred on the junction between lower thoracic and upper lumbar regions.

Its regional identity is therefore transitional rather than peripheral.

It prioritizes:

connection to Plexus Solaris and Plexus Lumbalis.

Distinction from Plexus Solaris

Plexus Solaris includes a pronounced anterior epigastric field.

TLO is centred on the lower thoracic–upper lumbar transition.

Distinction from Plexus Lumbalis

TLO remains primarily axial.

Plexus Lumbalis extends from the lumbar axis toward anterior hip and lower-limb trajectories.

17.7.2 Plexus Lumbalis Signature

Regional orientation

Principally L1–L4.

Signature identity

Lumbo-Anterior Distribution Field

Design characteristics

Plexus Lumbalis extends the lumbar platform toward:

proximal anterior and medial thigh.

Its design profile therefore favours:

differentiation from the more posterior Plexus Lumbosacralis field.

Distinction from TLO

TLO is an axial junction formulation.

Plexus Lumbalis is a lumbar-to-peripheral distribution formulation.

Distinction from Plexus Lumbosacralis

Plexus Lumbalis has a more anterior and medial lower-limb orientation.

Plexus Lumbosacralis has a more posterior, gluteal and lateral distribution orientation.

17.7.3 Plexus Lumbosacralis Signature

Regional orientation

Principally L4–S2.

Signature identity

Posterior Lumbo-Pelvic Distribution Field

Design characteristics

Plexus Lumbosacralis connects:

posterior or lateral lower-limb trajectories.

Its regional design profile prioritizes:

differentiation from the more anterior Plexus Lumbalis field.

Comparative orientation

TLO

Axial thoraco-lumbar transition

↓

Plexus Lumbalis

Anterior / medial lower-limb extension

↔

Plexus Lumbosacralis

Posterior / lateral lower-limb extension

↓

SX

Sacral and sacrococcygeal completion

• TLO;
• Plexus Lumbalis;
• posterior thoraco-lumbar application;
• continuity between trunk regions;
• compatibility with lower thoracic and upper lumbar tissues;
• lower abdominal or inguinal regions;
• anterior hip;
• good spreadability across lumbar and anterior transitional surfaces;
• compatibility with broader lower-trunk application;
• sufficient glide for proximal lower-limb trajectories;
• lower lumbar region;
• lumbosacral junction;
• gluteal and posterior pelvic field;
• larger application surfaces;
• strong continuity with SX;
• posterior lumbo-pelvic spreadability;

SX Regional Signature

Regional orientation

Principally S1–S5 with sacrococcygeal continuation.

Signature identity

Caudal Integration Field

Design characteristics

SX completes the lower regional architecture.

Its design must accommodate:

continuity with Plexus Lumbosacralis.

Its regional profile favours:

compatibility with maintenance strategies after Integration.

Distinction from Plexus Lumbosacralis

Plexus Lumbosacralis functions as a distribution and transition field.

SX functions as the terminal sacral Application Field.

Distinction from InflammaSacra

SX belongs to the regional metameric DUO system.

InflammaSacra belongs to a separate symptom- and phase-oriented support system.

• a broad posterior sacral field;
• lower sacral and sacrococcygeal application;
• possible pelvic extension;
• broad but controlled spread;
• repeated application over the sacral surface;
• clear differentiation from symptom-oriented InflammaSacra use;

KORR Integralis does not possess a fixed Regional Signature Matrix.

Its identity is deliberately neutral.

Signature identity

Adaptive Segmental Runner

KORR is intended to follow the selected segment rather than impose a predetermined regional formulation identity.

Its design principles are:

no unnecessary dominance by regional signature ingredients.

KORR should therefore not become a simplified version of OAA, CTO, TLO or another regional formulation.

Its pharmaceutical development must protect this neutrality.

• no exclusive anatomical region;
• limited segmental application;
• compatibility with different dermatomal trajectories;
• neutral formulation character;

InflammaSacra also lacks a fixed regional identity, but for a different reason.

KORR follows one isolated segment.

InflammaSacra follows a symptom-oriented and time-dependent support strategy.

Signature identity

Phase-Oriented Symptom Support

Its defining structure is:

Phase III.

Regional location is secondary to:

clinical evolution.

InflammaSacra may overlap spatially with SX or another regional product, but its design purpose remains independent.

• Phase I;
• Phase II;
• symptomatic presentation;
• stage of application;

The following matrix summarizes the intended distinctions.

Regional overlap is intentional, but it must remain clinically interpretable.

Rule 1 — Overlap does not erase identity

Neighbouring products may share segments or application surfaces while retaining different regional directions.

Rule 2 — The broader field determines the regional product

When several adjacent segments form one coherent Application Field, the regional DUO is preferred over KORR.

Rule 3 — The isolated segment determines KORR use

KORR is considered when one segment or dermatome remains distinctly prioritized without a broader regional pattern.

Rule 4 — Symptom support remains separate

InflammaSacra may accompany a regional strategy but must not be used to redefine the regional identity.

Rule 5 — Multiple regional products require prioritization

When more than one field is relevant, application order and timing should follow Clinical Assessment and Segment Prioritization rather than simultaneous indiscriminate application.

Regional identity may influence pharmaceutical requirements.

These may include differences in:

concentration of selected Regional Signature Components.

For example:

Plexus Lumbosacralis and SX may require effective spreading over broader surfaces.

These differences should be assessed during pharmaceutical rebuilding without unnecessarily disrupting the common platform vehicle.

• viscosity;
• glide;
• absorption profile;
• application surface;
• quantity required per application;
• airless dose requirements;
• balance between aqueous and lipid components;
• OAA may require precise and limited dispensing;
• Plexus Brachialis may require more longitudinal spread;
• Plexus Solaris may require compatibility with both posterior and anterior trunk application;

Regional differentiation should also be preserved in future evaluation protocols.

EMG or other exploratory measurements should therefore document:

whether the evaluation concerns regional or total-spine response.

Whole-spine EMG may provide a broader view of pre- and post-application patterns, but regional interpretation remains necessary.

Changes outside the primary Application Field should be documented as exploratory observations and not automatically interpreted as proof of a direct systemic mechanism.

Professional Review Notes — Chapter 17

Anouck Van Aerschot

PR-17.1 Regional texture requirements

For each regional formulation:

☐ document whether adjustment can be achieved through the vehicle quantity without changing the functional identity.

PR-17.2 Platform consistency

☐ avoid unnecessary formulation differences that are not supported by regional application requirements.

PR-17.3 Airless dispensing

☐ verify whether broader regions require another filling or dosing instruction rather than another formulation.

PR-17.4 Regional ingredient differentiation

☐ distinguish pharmaceutical overlap from intentional regional design overlap.

PR-17.5 Production adjustments

☐ defer functional ingredient changes until after the planned clinical evaluation period unless a safety or production issue requires immediate correction.

Editor’s R&D Note — Chapter 17

Regional Signature Design provides the conceptual bridge between anatomy and ingredient selection.

It defines why neighbouring formulations should not be identical, but also why their differences should remain controlled.

The next chapter will describe the ingredients that recur throughout the platform once only, avoiding repeated explanations in every regional fiche:

• the selected Application Field;
• the exact application zones;
• the formulation phase;
• the quantity applied;
• the time between application and measurement;
• the muscles or spinal regions measured;
• ☐ confirm whether the current viscosity suits the intended application surface;
• ☐ identify products requiring more glide;
• ☐ identify products requiring more precise local retention;
• ☐ preserve one common Lanette-based platform wherever technically feasible;
• ☐ document any necessary regional vehicle deviation;
• ☐ evaluate whether one pump output is appropriate for all regions;
• ☐ document the practical number of pump actuations per Application Field;
• ☐ review whether current signature ingredients sufficiently differentiate neighbouring formulations;
• ☐ identify unnecessary duplication;
• ☐ preserve overlap where it is part of the platform architecture;
• ☐ enter all technical gram adjustments in the Professional Review fiche;
• ☐ specify the reason for each adjustment;
• ☐ transfer accepted adjustments to the cleaned magistrale development fiche;