Certification AI review
AI certification basis mapping for new certification program or major change scoping
This review evaluates whether AI-assisted extraction can help build and maintain a certification basis register. EE checks regulation text, amendment levels, TCDS notes, special conditions, exemptions, ELOS findings, issue papers, CRIs, and program correspondence. AI assists paragraph-level extraction; certification engineers confirm each entry. The output is a basis-mapping exception list showing unsupported paragraphs, stale amendment assumptions, and items requiring authority alignment.
When this review is needed
- New certification program or major change scoping has created a gate where document titles are no longer enough.
- Program leaders need a ranked list of ai certification basis mapping blockers rather than another unfiltered file dump.
- Evidence was copied from earlier work and its applicability must be tested.
- Authority, DER, ODA, or internal reviewers are expected to sample the record trail.
The problem
A basis register can look authoritative while quietly carrying wrong amendment levels, missing special conditions, or assumptions copied from a different project. AI can accelerate extraction, but it can also make unsupported citations look more polished.
What gets reviewed
- Inventory regulation extract and record its source, owner, and controlled revision.
- Match basis register against the current baseline and the applicable plan language.
- Follow TCDS notes through downstream reports, summaries, and closure notes.
- Flag special conditions when it refers to a superseded configuration or unresolved deviation.
- List missing source records needed before reviewers can rely on the package.
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Identify what is missing against the means of compliance.
What gets validated
- A cited record passes only if its identifier, title, and revision match the controlled index.
- Configuration alignment is tested between regulation extract and special conditions; conflicting serials, drawings, or baselines fail.
- Evidence type is checked against the claim, so analysis cannot silently replace a promised test or inspection.
- Open exceptions fail the gate when they have no owner, due path, or technical disposition.
- Downstream documents are sampled for references that still point to superseded material.
Evidence normally required
- regulation extract
- basis register
- TCDS notes
- special conditions
- issue papers or CRIs
- authority correspondence
Common discrepancies
- amendment levels assumed from today's rule text.
- special conditions on novel features surfacing late.
- a register that quietly diverges from what the authority recorded in the G-1 issue paper or CRI.
What is at stake
A weak basis map leads to the wrong means of compliance, missing evidence, and authority rework. The damage appears downstream when the team has already built plans, matrices, and reports around the wrong baseline.
How the work runs
Collect basis sources
Gather regulation text, TCDS notes, issue papers, CRIs, special conditions, exemptions, and correspondence.
Build paragraph map
Extract candidate basis entries with amendment level, source citation, rationale, and affected area.
Engineer-confirm entries
Review unsupported citations, stale assumptions, missing special conditions, and authority-dependent items.
Package the register
Deliver a confirmed basis map and exception list for program alignment.
What the buyer receives
- Gap log for ai certification basis mapping
- Cross reference table
- Document retrieval list
- Disposition worksheet
- Submittal readiness note
Who uses the output
- certification manager decides which exceptions block the next gate.
- regulatory affairs lead updates the plan, matrix, or report index.
- chief engineer tracks owner responses through closure.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This belongs during new program scoping, major change assessment, or basis-register cleanup. It does not establish the certification basis. It evaluates the evidence-control method and gives engineers a source-linked map they can confirm before authority alignment.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements map to substantiating evidence.
Regulatory limits
The review is an evidence and consistency check only. EE does not approve data, accept certification credit, make airworthiness determinations, or act for FAA, EASA, a DER, a DAR, or an ODA unit member.
What this review does not cover
- Design approval
- Regulatory acceptance decisions
- Laboratory testing or retesting
- Acting as DER, DAR, ODA unit member, or authority
Specific to this review
- Amendment level is checked at paragraph level, not inferred from current rule text.
- Special conditions, exemptions, ELOS findings, CRIs, and issue papers are tracked separately.
- AI extraction is useful only when every row links to source text and engineer confirmation.
- The authority establishes the basis; this review prepares the applicant's evidence position.
- The output separates unsupported extraction from items that require authority discussion.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Frequently asked questions
Can AI establish the certification basis?
No. It can help organize candidate basis evidence. Establishing or agreeing the basis remains with the applicant, delegates, and authority.
What makes basis mapping risky?
Wrong amendment levels and missed special conditions can send the entire compliance plan in the wrong direction.
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.
Talk through the aircraft, records, evidence, deadline, and next useful step.