Compliance-matrix review when one matrix carries both an FAA and an EASA basis

When this review is needed

• One matrix has to answer to an FAA basis and an EASA basis at once and the two columns have drifted apart.
• Validation correspondence has reopened entries the team had already marked closed.
• An issue paper or certification review item changed a method and the matrix has not absorbed it.
• The supplier wants a method-by-method read before the package crosses to a second authority.

The problem

When one matrix carries two bases, the failure mode is rarely a missing row. It is a method mapped to an objective it cannot actually discharge, an entry that reads as closed on one side while the same line is still open in validation on the other, and a special condition or certification review item that moved a method after the row was first written. The matrix looks complete, so the divergence stays hidden until a reviewer on the second authority reads the same line and reaches a different conclusion.

What gets reviewed

• The certification basis recorded on the FAA side and on the EASA side of each entry
• Whether the assigned method of compliance actually discharges the objective it is mapped to
• Where the two bases diverge in method, status, or referenced standard for the same requirement
• Special conditions, issue papers, and certification review items that altered a method after the row was set
• The closure evidence each entry cites and whether it answers both bases
• Entries marked closed at home that remain open in validation correspondence

What gets validated

• Each requirement appears with a basis reference on every side it is claimed against
• The method assigned to an entry is adequate to discharge the objective, not merely present
• Where one matrix serves two bases, both columns agree on method, status, and standard
• Issue papers and certification review items that changed a method are reflected in the affected rows
• Closure evidence cited by an entry answers the requirement under each applicable basis
• Entries shown as closed are not contradicted by open validation correspondence
• Derived requirements carry a basis reference and a method on both sides

Evidence normally required

• The current compliance matrix with both basis columns
• The certification basis as recorded by the FAA and by EASA
• Open issue papers, special conditions, and certification review items
• The closure evidence cited by the entries or an index to it
• Validation correspondence to date if the program has crossed authorities

Common discrepancies

• A method recorded against an entry that cannot discharge the objective it is mapped to
• An entry closed under one basis while the matching line sits open in the other
• A certification review item that moved a method without the row being updated
• Closure evidence that satisfies one authority's expectation but not the second
• A derived requirement carried on one side and absent from the other
• Divergent referenced-standard revisions between the FAA and EASA columns of one entry

What is at stake

A divergence that surfaces during validation costs more than one caught at home, because the correction has to travel back through the original authority before it can satisfy the second. Entries reopen in clusters, the validation calendar slides, and engineering time that was committed to the next phase gets pulled back to defend lines that were thought settled.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• An annotated matrix flagging each method-adequacy and alignment exception with its reason
• A divergence list pairing the FAA and EASA entries that no longer agree
• A reopened-entry list tying closed rows to the validation correspondence that contradicts them
• A correction sequence ordered by validation exposure

Who uses the output

• Certification leads reconciling the matrix before it crosses to a second authority
• Validation managers tracking which entries the correspondence has reopened
• Compliance engineers correcting the methods and closures the review flagged

How the work fits into the transaction or program

This review concentrates on the part of a matrix that a single-basis check leaves untested, the agreement between two bases and the adequacy of each method. It runs alongside a coverage-and-currency check rather than repeating it, and feeds a fuller evidence review when the artifacts behind the flagged methods also need reading.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

A method accepted under an FAA basis is not automatically accepted under an EASA basis, and the reverse holds as well. The review treats each column on its own terms and reports where they diverge rather than assuming one authority's acceptance carries to the other.

Regulatory limits

Endeavor Elements reads the applicant's matrix and the consistency of its two bases. It does not make compliance findings for either authority, reconcile a disagreement on their behalf, or guarantee that validation will accept the package.

What this review does not cover

• Making compliance findings or accepting the matrix for either authority
• Negotiating a divergence with the FAA or EASA on the applicant's behalf
• Producing the closure evidence that a flagged method lacks

Specific to this review

• A matrix can be fully populated on both sides and still fail, because the test is whether each assigned method discharges its objective, which a row count never measures.
• The same requirement can be genuinely closed under one basis and genuinely open under the other, so an entry's status has to be read per authority rather than once.
• A certification review item or special condition can move a method after the row was written, and the matrix carries the old method until someone reconciles it.
• Closure evidence is read against two acceptance expectations here, because evidence that answers one authority does not always answer the second.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits