Certification evidence

DO-178C SOI-4 final package evidence review for DO-178C

This review is for avionics suppliers, Certification teams, Engineering teams responsible for DO-178C SOI-4 final package. It is triggered by sOI-4 audit scheduled. EE checks Software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim, SECI against the delivered build, open problem report list with safety-effect justifications, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or SAS claims that differ from what earlier SOI findings established. Output includes DO-178C SOI-4 final package exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.

When this review is needed

The plan names DO-178C SOI-4 final package as a required deliverable.
The review notes that evidence was carried forward from another configuration or installation.
The authority or authorized representative is expected to sample the records.
Open questions need to be separated from editorial cleanup.

The problem

File volume does not settle the question. The package must show why the evidence proves is the final software data package closed enough to pass the SOI-4 final certification review, especially where SAS claims that differ from what earlier SOI findings established.

What gets reviewed

Review software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Compare sECI against the delivered build against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Trace open problem report list with safety-effect justifications against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
Challenge final build demonstration records. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.

What gets validated

Pass check: software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Configuration check: sECI against the delivered build must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Trace check: open problem report list with safety-effect justifications must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Rationale check: final build demonstration records. must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.

Evidence normally required

Controlled software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim
Released sECI against the delivered build
Signed open problem report list with safety-effect justifications
Current final build demonstration records.
Archived plan revision
Supplier trace matrix

Common discrepancies

Gap: sAS claims that differ from what earlier SOI findings established.
Mismatch: oPRs with no analysis of operational effect.
Unsupported claim: sCI part number that does not match the load actually delivered for conformity.

What is at stake

The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when OPRs with no analysis of operational effect, because closure may touch configuration control and engineering rationale.

Move from findings to resolution

Identify gaps against the means of compliance.

How the work runs

Frame 178c Soi

Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any software accomplishment summary claim by claim is treated as sufficient.

Trace Review Prep

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 Evidence Certification

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

Package Configuration Index

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 SOI-4 final package exception register
Claim to evidence map
Reviewer question list
Closure action plan

Who uses the output

certification manager assign closure actions from the exception register.
software 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

Is the final software data package closed enough to pass the SOI-4 final certification review. The evidence set centers on the Software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim, the SCI and SECI against the delivered build, the open problem report list with safety-effect justifications, and the final build demonstration records. The likely weak points are SAS claims that differ from what earlier SOI findings established, OPRs with no analysis of operational effect, and an SCI part number that does not match the load actually delivered for conformity. The output gives the certification manager a cleanup register for DO-178C SOI-4 final package before SOI-4 audit.

Start with a single asset

Confirm requirements trace through verification.

Regulatory limits

EE provides an evidence-quality assessment only. The work does not certify an article, sign a finding, approve a plan, or decide regulatory acceptance.

What this review does not cover

Plan approval
DER or DOA signature
Conformity inspection
Supplier selection

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: SAS claims that differ from what earlier SOI findings established changes the strength of the certification argument.
The scope uses the 178c Soi Final Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to SOI-4 audit scheduled and the buyer decision behind it.
The evidence starts with Software Accomplishment Summary claim by claim and follows Prep Package Evidence 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 certification manager: 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 Sas Configuration Index Open 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 SOI-4 final package 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).

Order 8110.4 - Type Certification

Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.

14 CFR Part 21 - Certification Procedures for Products and Articles

U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).

Frequently asked questions

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

The scope is tied to 178c soi final 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 soi-4 audit scheduled or can be closed later without changing the decision.

What evidence has to be available before this work starts?

The starting point is software accomplishment summary claim by claim, 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 certification manager 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

Software Accomplishment Summary (SAS)Problem Reports and Change Requests Configuration Items and Software Lifecycle Data Software Baselines Stages of Involvement (SOI) Audits Software Level

DO-178C SOI-3 verification review prep for soi-3 audit scheduledDO-178C SOI-3 verification review prep for avionics suppliers and Engineering teams. EE checks source evidence DO-254 Appendix B advanced verification review for dal a/b hardware verification planningReview do-254 appendix b advanced verification review evidence, flag unsupported claims, and receive an except Software Accomplishment Summary (SAS) reviewThe SAS must report what the program did, not what the PSAC promised. We check every claim against the DO-178C Certification findings left open with no closure evidence on fileFindings answered but never evidenced keep a certification program open. Get a closure-status map: what is tru Authority-submittal readiness review before you fileFile too early and the findings cycle starts. We review the data package and compliance reports, then call it:

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.