Certification evidence

Data and control coupling analysis evidence review for DO-178C

This review is for avionics suppliers, Engineering teams, Certification teams responsible for data and control coupling analysis. It is triggered by coupling analysis questioned or due. EE checks interface, coupling definitions, analysis method, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or no documented definition of the couples being measured. Output includes Data and control coupling analysis exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.

When this review is needed

Submittal planning has reached the data and control coupling analysis evidence package.
A reviewer has questioned one cited claim or missing source record.
A change to configuration, installation, or intended use may affect prior evidence.
The program needs an exception list before formal review.

The problem

The hard part is proving the data and control coupling analysis actually confirm interfaces were exercised by requirements-based integration testing, or is it a coverage-tool artifact produced to tick a box with records that match the reviewed configuration. A tidy index still fails if no documented definition of the couples being measured or if the cited record belongs to another baseline.

What gets reviewed

Review interface against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Compare coupling definitions against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Trace analysis method against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Challenge its tie to integration test results against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Reconcile coverage data credited to the objective against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Confirm resolutions for unexercised couples. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.

What gets validated

Pass check: interface must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Configuration check: coupling definitions must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Trace check: analysis method must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Rationale check: its tie to integration test results must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Closure check: coverage data credited to the objective must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.

Evidence normally required

Controlled interface
Released coupling definitions
Signed analysis method
Current its tie to integration test results
Archived coverage data credited to the objective
Supplier resolutions for unexercised couples.

Common discrepancies

Gap: no documented definition of the couples being measured.
Mismatch: analysis run on unit tests instead of integration tests.
Unsupported claim: gaps closed by inspection with no rationale the authority has agreed to.

What is at stake

Late discovery can reopen tests, analysis, or plan wording after schedules have already assumed closure. The worst cases involve analysis run on unit tests instead of integration tests because they need technical support, not cleaner prose.

Move from findings to resolution

Identify gaps against the means of compliance.

How the work runs

Frame Data Coupling

Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any interface is treated as sufficient.

Trace Analysis 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 178c Certification

Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.

Package Teams Fake

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

Data and control coupling analysis exception register
Claim to evidence map
Reviewer question list
Closure action plan

Who uses the output

verification lead assign closure actions from the exception register.
software 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 data and control coupling analysis actually confirm interfaces were exercised by requirements-based integration testing, or is it a coverage-tool artifact produced to tick a box. The evidence set centers on interface and coupling definitions, the analysis method and its tie to integration test results, coverage data credited to the objective, and resolutions for unexercised couples. The likely weak points are no documented definition of the couples being measured, analysis run on unit tests instead of integration tests, and gaps closed by inspection with no rationale the authority has agreed to. The output gives the verification lead a cleanup register for Data and control coupling analysis before coupling analysis questioned or due.

Start with a single asset

Confirm requirements trace through verification.

Regulatory limits

EE organizes evidence and exceptions; it does not approve data, make compliance findings, determine airworthiness, or replace the applicant, designee, design organization, or authority.

What this review does not cover

Regulatory approval or acceptance
Design ownership or finding signature
Physical conformity inspection
Laboratory testing or manufacturing

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: no documented definition of the couples being measured changes the strength of the certification argument.
The scope uses the Data Coupling Control Analysis question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Coupling analysis questioned or due and the buyer decision behind it.
The evidence starts with Interface and follows Review Evidence 178c 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 verification lead: 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 Objective Teams Fake Last questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
The handoff value comes from Data and control coupling analysis exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.

Sources

DO-178C - Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and Equipment Certification

RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).

Frequently asked questions

What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?

The scope is tied to data coupling control analysis and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block coupling analysis questioned or due or can be closed later without changing the decision.

What evidence has to be available before this work starts?

The starting point is interface, 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 verification lead 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

Structural Coverage Analysis Interfaces and Interface Control Documents (ICD)Requirements-Based Testing Software Verification Software Component

Crash safety inertia load substantiation review for installation load substantiationCrash safety inertia load substantiation review for OEMs and MROs. EE checks source evidence, flags discrepanc DO-160 category selection audit evidence review for DO-160GBefore submittal, EE tests DO-160 category selection audit records against DO-160G and identifies missing supp Structural-coverage evidence review for airborne softwareCoverage gaps can stall verification closure. We check MC/DC, decision, and statement results against your DO-Verification-traceability review for certification evidenceA requirement without current verification evidence is an open finding. We trace each one to its method and re Requirements-based test evidence review for airborne softwareUntraced tests or robustness gaps weaken a DO-178C verdict. We review requirements-based test cases and result

Where this fits

Service: TSO and STC Certification For Equipment

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.