Certification evidence
DO-178C Level A evidence evidence review for DO-178C
This review is for avionics suppliers, Engineering teams, Certification teams responsible for DO-178C Level A evidence. It is triggered by dAL A program entering verification. EE checks structural coverage results with gap resolutions, traceability data, independence records, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or coverage measured on instrumented builds with no equivalence argument. Output includes DO-178C Level A evidence exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- A new article, software load, or installation is moving into certification review.
- Quality control needs a repeatable list of ready and open records.
- Internal teams need a supplier request list tied to evidence gaps.
- The buyer wants a defensible package before committing the claim.
The problem
Certification risk sits in the gap between the claimed basis and the records in the folder. With DO-178C Level A evidence, coverage measured on instrumented builds with no equivalence argument can stay hidden until the exact source record is requested.
What gets reviewed
- Review structural coverage results with gap resolutions against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare traceability data against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace independence records against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge robustness evidence scaled to the level claimed. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: structural coverage results with gap resolutions must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: traceability data must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: independence records must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: robustness evidence scaled to the level claimed. must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled structural coverage results with gap resolutions
- Released traceability data
- Signed independence records
- Current robustness evidence scaled to the level claimed.
- Archived plan revision
- Supplier trace matrix
Common discrepancies
- Gap: coverage measured on instrumented builds with no equivalence argument.
- Mismatch: compiler-added code never analyzed at Level A.
- Unsupported claim: independence claimed on paper while the same engineer wrote.
- Late issue: verified the code.
- Configuration break: level D packages padded with objectives nobody required while missing ones that still apply.
What is at stake
A weak package can convert a planned review into a long question log. If compiler-added code never analyzed at Level A, the program may need new evidence before the claim can proceed.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame 178c Level
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any structural coverage results with gap resolutions is treated as sufficient.
Trace Review Certification
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 Changes Unique
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Audit Verify
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
- DO-178C Level A evidence exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- software lead assign closure actions from the exception register.
- verification lead use the map to locate source evidence.
- DER decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Does the data package meet the objectives applicable at its assigned DAL, not merely the common set; The review walks the deltas level by level: MC/DC coverage, source-to-object traceability, and independence at Level A; decision coverage and the reduced independence subset at Level B; statement coverage and data/control coupling analysis at Level C; the minimum objective set that still applies at Level D. The evidence set centers on structural coverage results with gap resolutions, traceability data,. The likely weak points are coverage measured on instrumented builds with no equivalence argument, compiler-added code never analyzed at Level A, independence claimed on paper while the same engineer wrote and verified the code, and Level D packages padded with objectives nobody required while missing ones that still apply. The output gives the software lead a cleanup register for DO-178C Level A evidence before DAL A program entering verification.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
The output supports applicant decision making and authority discussions. It does not replace required approvals, designee findings, conformity activity, or airworthiness determinations.
What this review does not cover
- Final certification decision
- Airworthiness determination
- Hardware or software redesign
- Production quality release
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: coverage measured on instrumented builds with no equivalence argument changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the 178c Level Evidence Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to DAL A program entering verification and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Structural coverage results with gap resolutions and follows Certification Dal Changes Unique 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 software 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 Objectives Audit Verify Software questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from DO-178C Level A evidence exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to 178c level evidence review and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block dal a program entering verification or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is structural coverage results with gap resolutions, 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 software 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
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.