Certification evidence
Means-of-compliance map evidence review for avionics suppliers
A means-of-compliance map evidence review checks the logic that connects each requirement to how it will be shown compliant and to the evidence that shows it. It is for an avionics supplier heading into submittal, a finding response, or a design change who needs that logic to hold rather than just look complete. The review reads the requirement-to-method-to-evidence chain and finds where a requirement has a method assigned but no evidence path underneath. You get a gap list of the broken chains, an evidence map behind the assignments, and a closure sequence certification leadership can drive.
When this review is needed
- A requirement carries a chosen method but the evidence that method would produce does not exist yet.
- A submittal is near and the map has never been walked from requirement to method to actual evidence.
- A finding response depends on a method being the right one for the requirement it answers.
- A design change added requirements that have not been assigned a method or an evidence path.
The problem
Assigning a means of compliance is easy; producing what it demands is the work. A map fills up with methods chosen early, and a requirement can read as handled because it has test or analysis written next to it, even when no test was run and no analysis was done. The gap is not visible in the map itself, only when someone follows the chain from the requirement through the method to the artifact that should sit at the end of it and finds nothing there.
What gets reviewed
- Each requirement checked for an assigned means of compliance
- The chosen method confirmed as appropriate to the requirement it answers
- The evidence path traced from the method to the artifact it should produce
- Requirements with a method but no evidence path flagged as broken chains
- The map reconciled to the certification basis the requirements come from
- Derived and changed requirements checked for a method and evidence path of their own
What gets validated
- Every requirement in the map carries an assigned means of compliance
- The method chosen for each requirement suits it rather than the easiest label to apply
- Each method traces forward to an evidence artifact that exists or is planned with a date
- No requirement reads as handled on the strength of a method with nothing behind it
- Derived and changed requirements have their own method and evidence path, not an inherited one
Evidence normally required
- The means-of-compliance map in its current revision
- The requirements set, including derived and changed requirements
- The certification basis the requirements answer
- The evidence artifacts the methods are meant to produce
- The design change history affecting the requirements
Common discrepancies
- A requirement with a method assigned but no evidence artifact behind it
- A method chosen for convenience that does not actually suit the requirement
- A derived requirement left without a means of compliance of its own
- An evidence path that stops at a planned artifact with no date or owner
What is at stake
A requirement with a method but no evidence is a compliance claim the supplier cannot back, and a reviewer who follows the chain arrives at the same empty end and raises a finding. Discovered late, these gaps mean choosing a method and producing its evidence under review pressure, when the honest choice of an easier acceptable method is no longer available and the schedule pays for the delay.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Confirm assignment
Check every requirement, including derived ones, carries a means of compliance.
Test the method
Confirm the chosen method suits the requirement rather than being the easiest label.
Walk to the evidence
Trace each method forward to the artifact it should produce and flag the empty ends.
Sequence closure
Order the broken chains so methods are chosen and evidence produced in the right order.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of the requirement-to-evidence chains that do not resolve
- An evidence map behind each method assignment
- A closure sequence for choosing methods and producing the missing evidence
Who uses the output
- Certification leads confirming every requirement has a method that ends in real evidence
- Engineering leads deciding which method to commit to for a requirement still open
- Reviewers on the supplier side checking derived requirements are not left uncovered
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The means-of-compliance map is the layer between the requirements and the evidence, so a broken chain here shows up as a hole in the compliance matrix above it and missing verification below. Walking it before submittal lets the supplier still choose an efficient method while the choice is open, and the resolved chains feed the compliance matrix and the requirements trace that both depend on the same requirement-to-evidence logic.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The map answers the certification basis the FAA and EASA set, and the acceptable methods for a given requirement can differ between them. The review notes where a method accepted by one authority would need a different or additional approach for the other, so a map built for one submittal is not assumed to satisfy the second.
Regulatory limits
The review checks the map for assigned methods and real evidence paths. It does not choose the means of compliance for a requirement, accept a method on an authority's behalf, or determine that the article is compliant.
What this review does not cover
- Selecting the means of compliance the supplier has not committed to
- Producing the evidence a method is meant to generate
- Any determination that a chosen method is acceptable to the authority
Specific to this review
- A requirement can read as covered because a method sits next to it, even when the evidence the method demands was never produced, so the review walks to the artifact rather than trusting the label.
- The cost of a broken chain rises sharply near submittal, because the freedom to pick an easier acceptable method is gone once a reviewer is waiting.
- Derived requirements are the ones most often left without a method, because they appear after the initial map is built and inherit no assignment automatically.
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
The map is fully populated. Why review it?
A populated map only shows that every requirement has a method next to it. The review walks the chain from method to the evidence artifact it should produce, which is where the gaps are, because a requirement can look handled while the test behind it was never run or the analysis never done.
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.