Means-of-compliance map
Means-of-compliance map evidence review for aircraft modifiers
A means-of-compliance map evidence review follows the logic that carries each requirement to the method chosen to satisfy it and then to the evidence that method will produce. It is run for aircraft modifiers before a submittal, during a finding response, or when a design change reassigns methods across the map. The review finds requirements that carry an assigned means but no evidence path behind it, and methods that do not actually demonstrate the requirement they are attached to. You get a gap list, an evidence map keyed to each requirement, and a closure order that resolves the disconnected paths first.
When this review is needed
- A submittal is near and the map is what tells the authority how each requirement will be shown compliant.
- A finding questioned whether a chosen method actually demonstrates the requirement it was assigned to.
- A change reassigned methods, for instance from test to analysis, and the new paths were never verified.
- The map was built in a tool and its links have never been walked end to end by a reviewer.
The problem
Assigning a means of compliance is quick; building the evidence path behind it is slow. So the map fills with requirements that have a tidy method in the cell next to them and nothing behind that method. The gap is invisible in a spreadsheet view, because the assignment looks like progress. It only surfaces when someone tries to follow a requirement from its method to the document that closes it and finds the path dead-ends.
What gets reviewed
- Each requirement confirmed to carry an assigned means of compliance, with none left unmethoded
- The assigned method checked for fit against what the requirement actually demands
- The evidence path behind each method traced to a named deliverable rather than a bare method label
- Requirements sharing a method checked so a single deliverable is not overloaded beyond what it proves
- Reassigned methods from design changes confirmed to carry a fresh, valid evidence path
- Requirements marked satisfied confirmed to reach an existing document rather than a planned one
What gets validated
- Every requirement in the map has a means of compliance assigned to it
- The assigned method is capable of demonstrating the specific requirement it is attached to
- Each method resolves to a named deliverable that will hold or already holds the evidence
- A deliverable cited by multiple requirements actually covers each of them rather than one alone
- Requirements shown as satisfied reach a document that exists in the controlled set
Evidence normally required
- The current means-of-compliance map and the requirement set it works from
- The certification basis the requirements derive from
- The document register that names each intended deliverable
- Any change notices that reassigned methods since the map was baselined
- The compliance matrix so the two views can be reconciled
Common discrepancies
- Requirements with a method assigned but no deliverable behind it
- A method that cannot demonstrate the requirement it was mapped to, such as analysis where test is required
- A single deliverable stretched across requirements it only partly covers
- Reassigned methods left pointing at the evidence path of the method they replaced
What is at stake
Requirements with an assigned method but no evidence path give the program a false sense of completion, and the missing work is discovered late, often during finding response when there is no schedule left to absorb it. A method that does not fit its requirement is worse, because it can pass internal review and still draw a finding that reopens the row.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Confirm every requirement has a method
Walk the requirement set against the map and flag any requirement with no means of compliance assigned.
Test method fit
Check that each assigned method can actually demonstrate the requirement it is attached to.
Trace the evidence path
Follow each method to a named deliverable and confirm the deliverable will hold the evidence claimed.
Return gaps and order
Deliver the disconnected and mismatched paths with an evidence map and a closure sequence.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of requirements whose method has no evidence path or an ill-fitting one
- An evidence map that carries each requirement through its method to a named deliverable
- A closure order that fixes the disconnected and mismatched paths before dependent rows
Who uses the output
- STC program managers gauging how much evidence work the map still hides
- Certification engineers defending a method choice against a finding
- Engineering leads directing test and analysis effort to the truly open paths
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The map is the hinge between requirements and reports: it turns a requirement into a plan for proving it. Walking that hinge before submittal keeps the compliance matrix honest, because a matrix row is only as sound as the evidence path the map defines behind its stated means.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both accept the standard demonstration methods, but they can expect different justification for choosing analysis over test on a given requirement. The review checks that each method choice is defensible under the governing authority's expectations rather than assuming a method accepted once is accepted everywhere.
Regulatory limits
This is a review of the modifier's own compliance logic. It does not approve a method choice, does not make a compliance finding, and does not determine airworthiness. Acceptance of the means of compliance rests with the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Choosing or reassigning means of compliance for the modifier
- Producing the test or analysis evidence a path is missing
- Presenting or defending method choices to the authority
Specific to this review
- An assigned method reads as progress in every tool view, which is exactly why maps hide so much missing evidence work behind valid-looking cells.
- The dangerous defect is not the unmethoded requirement but the well-methoded one whose method cannot actually demonstrate what the requirement demands.
- Method reassignment is a frequent source of dead paths, because changing the cell is one step and rebuilding the evidence path behind it is another that often gets skipped.
- Shared deliverables are where coverage silently thins, since one report attached to several requirements rarely proves all of them equally.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
We assigned a method to every requirement. Is that not enough?
Assigning a method is only the first half. The review checks the second half: whether each method fits its requirement and leads to a real deliverable. A fully assigned map can still have most of its evidence work outstanding.
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.