Compliance matrix
Compliance matrix evidence review for certification teams
A compliance matrix evidence review checks that each row of the matrix still points at evidence that supports the compliance it claims. It is run for a certification team before submittal, during a finding response, or ahead of a design change review, by or for the team that owns the compliance record. The work reads coverage across the certification basis, the declared means of compliance, and the currency of the cited evidence, then flags every row where the reference no longer backs the claim. You receive a gap list, an evidence map from each basis item to its current source, and a closure sequence compliance management can drive.
When this review is needed
- A design change revised a report the matrix still cites at its old revision.
- Several basis items share one referenced document and no one has confirmed it covers each claim.
- The team is preparing to submit and needs every row backed before an authority reads them.
- A finding reopened one requirement and the effect on related matrix rows has not been traced.
The problem
The compliance matrix is the index the whole certification package is read through, and it decays quietly as the evidence beneath it moves. A report gets revised and the row still cites the prior issue, a means of compliance is declared but its evidence was never finished, or one document is stretched across several requirements it only partly addresses. Each row looks answered, so the erosion is invisible until a reviewer opens the reference and it does not say what the matrix promised.
What gets reviewed
- Coverage checked so every applicable certification basis item appears as a matrix row
- The declared means of compliance confirmed appropriate to each requirement
- Cited evidence checked at the revision the matrix references, not a superseded issue
- Rows sharing a single reference checked so the document supports each claim it is stretched across
- Each compliance finding traced to a substantiating document rather than an assertion
- The effect of open findings and recent changes traced across dependent rows
What gets validated
- Every applicable basis item is represented, with no requirement missing from the matrix
- Each declared means of compliance is one the requirement and the basis actually accept
- The evidence cited on each row exists at the revision named and supports the specific claim
- A document referenced by more than one row demonstrably covers each of those requirements
- Every row marked compliant carries a finding backed by a retrievable document
Evidence normally required
- The compliance matrix or checklist in its current state
- The certification basis and the applicable requirement list
- The reports, analyses, and test data the matrix references
- The revision status of each cited document
- The open finding list and the change history since the last matrix update
Common discrepancies
- A row citing a report at a revision that a later change has superseded
- A means of compliance declared but with no finished evidence behind it
- One document stretched across requirements it only partially addresses
- An applicable basis item that never made it into the matrix at all
What is at stake
A matrix row that cites stale or absent evidence turns into a finding the moment a reviewer follows the reference, and a package with several such rows reads as unready no matter how strong the underlying work is. Because the matrix is where an authority starts, a weak matrix slows the entire review and can cost the team the credibility that a clean index would have earned.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Check coverage
Confirm every applicable basis item appears as a row before checking any evidence.
Verify the means
Confirm each declared means of compliance suits the requirement it is claimed against.
Open every reference
Check that the cited evidence exists at the named revision and supports the specific claim.
Sequence the corrections
Order the row fixes by their effect on the submittal date.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list identifying each row where the evidence no longer supports the claim
- An evidence map linking every basis item to its current substantiating document
- A closure sequence ordering the matrix corrections by their effect on submittal
Who uses the output
- Compliance managers confirming the matrix is complete and current before it goes out
- Certification leads deciding which rows must close before the package moves
- Engineering owners reconnecting a revised report to the rows that depend on it
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The compliance matrix is the spine that ties the certification basis to every piece of evidence in the package, so a broken row usually signals a break somewhere deeper in the data. Reviewing it before submittal turns the matrix into an index a reviewer can trust, and the map it produces points directly at the means-of-compliance and trace evidence that each row leans on.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA structure their compliance records differently, and a matrix that satisfies one authority's expectations for how a means of compliance is declared may need reformatting for the other. Where a project is certified under both, the review notes where an accepted means or evidence citation has to be expressed differently to hold under each basis.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the matrix is complete, current, and internally supported. It does not accept a means of compliance on the authority's behalf, close a compliance finding, or determine that the project meets its certification basis.
What this review does not cover
- Authoring the reports or analyses a row depends on
- Deciding on the authority's behalf whether a means of compliance is acceptable
- Any determination that the certification basis is satisfied
Specific to this review
- The matrix is the first document a reviewer opens, so its condition sets the tone for how the rest of the package is read.
- One document shared across several rows is the most common hidden gap, because it is checked once and assumed to cover every claim it is cited for.
- A matrix decays through revision drift more than through missing work: the evidence usually exists, but at a different issue than the row names.
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
Why check documents shared across several matrix rows so carefully?
A single report cited by multiple requirements is easy to accept once and assume it covers all of them. In practice it often addresses one claim fully and the others only in part, so each row that leans on it has to be checked against the specific requirement it represents.
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.