Post-migration reconciliation
Source-record reconciliation after a system change
Source-record reconciliation confirms that the status an operator's records system reports still ties back to the source documents behind it after a migration or system change. It is run when records move between systems and the status has to be re-trusted. It covers comparing reported AD, SB, LLP, and component status against the underlying accomplishment and release evidence, and surfacing where the system now says something the documents do not support. You receive a reconciliation register, a list of unsupported status lines, and a mapping back to the source for each discrepancy.
When this review is needed
- Records have moved to a new system and the reported status has to be trusted again.
- A migration completed but no one has checked the new status against the source documents.
- Two systems disagree after a cutover and the operator needs to know which the documents support.
- An audit is coming and the operator must show the new system's status is grounded in evidence.
The problem
A migration moves data, not always meaning. Status that was correct in the old system can land in the new one detached from the accomplishment and release documents that justified it. The system keeps reporting a number, but the question of whether the source still supports it goes unasked until an audit or a transaction forces it.
What gets reviewed
- Reported AD and SB status compared to source accomplishment evidence
- LLP status compared to release and accumulation documents
- Component status compared to shop-visit and removal records
- Any status line the new system reports without supporting source on file
- A mapping from each reconciled line back to its source document
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Send a representative, redacted record set and we will scope the review.
What gets validated
- Each reported status line resolves to a source document that supports it
- AD and SB positions agree between the reported status and the accomplishment evidence
- LLP figures in the system reconcile with the release and accumulation records
- Component status matches the shop-visit and removal history on file
- Where two systems disagree, the resolved position is the one the source document supports
Evidence normally required
- Status reports exported from the records system
- Source accomplishment and release documents
- Shop-visit and component records
- A sample of records known to be correct for spot-checking
Common discrepancies
- A status line the system reports with no source document behind it
- An AD position that disagrees with the accomplishment evidence after migration
- An LLP figure that no longer ties to its release documentation
- Component status that the shop-visit record does not support
What is at stake
An operator relying on migrated status that the documents no longer support is exposed at the first audit or sale that checks the underlying evidence. Re-establishing the link after the migration team has moved on is slower and more costly than confirming it during the cutover window.
How the work runs
Pull the source
Gather the accomplishment and release documents behind each status line.
Reconcile line by line
Confirm each reported figure resolves to a supporting source document.
Register the gaps
List unsupported lines and map each back to where the source should be.
What the buyer receives
- A reconciliation register tying reported status to source evidence
- A list of unsupported status lines for follow-up
- A source mapping for each reconciled discrepancy
Who uses the output
- Continuing-airworthiness teams who must trust the reported status again
- Records and systems staff resolving which post-cutover value the source supports
- Auditors and counterparties who check status against the underlying evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Reconciliation runs after the migration confirms the data moved, re-establishing the link between reported status and the source documents that justify it. Its register and source mapping then ground the status that an audit or a transaction will test.
Start with a single asset
Prove the review on a single tail, then scale across the fleet.
Regulatory limits
Reconciliation confirms that reported status ties back to source evidence. It does not approve the underlying maintenance, validate the records system, or determine that the aircraft is airworthy on the strength of the reconciled status.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or configuring the system migration itself
- Repairing or rebuilding the records software
- Any airworthiness determination from the reconciled status
Specific to this review
- A migration moves the status value but does not guarantee the link to the document that justified it, which is the link that matters at audit.
- Status that was correct in the old system can become unsupported in the new one without any value changing, just the connection to the source.
- The window to re-establish the source link cheaply is during the cutover, before the migration team disbands.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Records an owner or operator must keep, including total time in service, current status of life-limited parts, and AD compliance.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA acceptance criteria for electronic recordkeeping systems and electronic signatures.
European Union / EASA. Continuing airworthiness, maintenance records, CAMO responsibilities, and the airworthiness review process in the EASA system.
Frequently asked questions
Isn't a successful migration enough on its own?
A migration confirms the data moved. Reconciliation confirms the status the system reports still ties to the source documents that justify it, which is the part an auditor or buyer actually checks.
Relevant glossary terms
Related pages
Where this fits
Talk to an engineer who has done this work
We will walk through your current state, the records or evidence involved, and a scoped first engagement.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.