Certification evidence
Aeronautical data integrity chain evidence review for the agreed certification basis
This review is for avionics suppliers, equipment suppliers, Engineering teams responsible for aeronautical data integrity chain. It is triggered by aeronautical-data package review. EE checks DQRs per data element, processing-step controls, integrity protection at each link, plus the governing plan or application, against the agreed certification basis. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or integrity assured within a tool but not across a hand-off. Output includes Aeronautical data integrity chain exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names aeronautical data integrity chain as a required deliverable.
- The review notes that evidence was carried forward from another configuration or installation.
- The authority or authorized representative is expected to sample the records.
- Open questions need to be separated from editorial cleanup.
The problem
File volume does not settle the question. The package must show why the evidence proves the aeronautical-data package preserve the required Data Quality Requirements across every processing step to the airborne database, because DO-200B compliance breaks at hand-offs where integrity protection or traceability is lost, especially where integrity assured within a tool but not across a hand-off.
What gets reviewed
- Review dQRs per data element against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare processing-step controls against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace integrity protection at each link against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge traceability from source to loaded database against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile process approvals against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm acceptance credential. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: dQRs per data element must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: processing-step controls must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: integrity protection at each link must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: traceability from source to loaded database must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: process approvals must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled dQRs per data element
- Released processing-step controls
- Signed integrity protection at each link
- Current traceability from source to loaded database
- Archived process approvals
- Supplier acceptance credential.
Common discrepancies
- Gap: integrity assured within a tool but not across a hand-off.
- Mismatch: data element with undefined DQRs.
- Unsupported claim: loaded database whose provenance cannot be traced.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when data element with undefined DQRs, because closure may touch configuration control and engineering rationale.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Aeronautical Data
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any dqrs per data element is treated as sufficient.
Trace Chain Review
Walk the named evidence from index entry to source artifact and mark where the trail supports, conflicts with, or fails to answer the page-specific question.
Sort Agreed Certification
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package 200b Dqrs
Deliver the exception list, evidence map, and owner sequence in a form that can move directly into remediation, submittal cleanup, or transaction negotiation.
What the buyer receives
- Aeronautical data integrity chain exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- data engineer assign closure actions from the exception register.
- quality lead use the map to locate source evidence.
- certification liaison decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Does the aeronautical-data package preserve the required Data Quality Requirements across every processing step to the airborne database, because DO-200B compliance breaks at hand-offs where integrity protection or traceability is lost. The evidence set centers on the DQRs per data element, the processing-step controls and integrity protection (CRC/checksum) at each link, the traceability from source to loaded database, the tool and process approvals, and the acceptance credential. The likely weak points are integrity assured within a tool but not across a hand-off, a data element with undefined DQRs, and a loaded database whose provenance cannot be traced; Pairs with the DO-200B standard page: that explains the framework, this reviews the actual chain evidence. The output gives the data engineer a cleanup register for Aeronautical data integrity chain before aeronautical-data package review.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
EE provides an evidence-quality assessment only. The work does not certify an article, sign a finding, approve a plan, or decide regulatory acceptance.
What this review does not cover
- Plan approval
- DER or DOA signature
- Conformity inspection
- Supplier selection
Specific to this review
- Configuration identity matters because evidence from another baseline may prove a different article, load, or installation.
- A useful trail names the source record, revision, owner, and closure decision for each claim.
- The exception list separates document-control cleanup from gaps that need engineering substantiation.
- The finding pattern for this page is specific: integrity assured within a tool but not across a hand-off changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Aeronautical Data Integrity Chain question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Aeronautical-data package review and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with DQRs per data element and follows Review Evidence Agreed Certification references until every exception has a source location and a reason code.
- The finding logic separates missing paperwork, conflicting status, stale revision data, and unsupported disposition because each class closes through a different owner.
- The timing matters for data engineer: the output is useful only if the unresolved items are visible before acceptance, submittal, handback, or negotiation pressure fixes the sequence.
- The boundary control keeps Basis 200b Dqrs Preserved questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Aeronautical data integrity chain exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to aeronautical data integrity chain and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block aeronautical-data package review or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is dqrs per data element, the current status source, and any index or matrix that tells reviewers where the supporting artifact should live. Missing inputs are logged as findings rather than filled with assumptions.
Who decides whether an open item is acceptable?
The review explains what the evidence supports and gives data engineer a closure path. Acceptance remains with the buyer, operator, authority, delegated engineer, or authorized person responsible for the underlying airworthiness or certification decision.
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.