Finding register
Finding and action-item register review before a program closes its open items
This review reads the register a certification program uses to track its findings and action items and confirms that what it shows as closed is actually answered. It serves avionics and equipment suppliers heading into a closure milestone or an audit where the register itself will be examined. It is run when the open-item count has to be defended, or when a status review revealed items marked closed without evidence behind them. The review reads each entry's owner, status, due date, and the closure evidence it cites, then checks that the evidence answers the finding as written. You receive a reconciled register with each closed item confirmed or reopened, an aging view of the genuinely open items, and a list of closures whose evidence does not address the finding.
When this review is needed
- A closure milestone is near and the open-item count has to stand up to an examiner.
- A status review found items marked closed with nothing behind them.
- An audit will examine the register itself and the team needs to know what it actually shows.
- Items have aged past their due dates and ownership has drifted as the program changed hands.
The problem
A finding register starts as a tracking tool and becomes a closure claim, but the discipline that fills it early erodes as the program runs. Items get marked closed in a status meeting before the evidence exists, a finding gets split and one half is forgotten, and closure notes point at a document that addresses a different finding than the one on the line. The count looks healthy, so the register is presented as proof the program is ready, while several closures would not survive the first question an auditor asks.
What gets reviewed
- Every entry's owner, status, due date, and current disposition
- The closure evidence each closed item cites and whether it answers the finding as written
- Findings that were split, merged, or superseded and whether every part is tracked
- Duplicate or orphaned entries that distort the open-item count
- Aging of the genuinely open items against their due dates
- Consistency between the register and the audit or review notes the findings came from
What gets validated
- Every entry has an owner, a status, and a due date that reflect its real disposition
- Each closed item cites evidence that answers the finding it was raised against
- Findings that were split or merged keep every part tracked to closure
- No closed item is contradicted by a later audit or review note
- Duplicate and orphaned entries are identified so the open count is true
- The register agrees with the source notes the findings were recorded from
Evidence normally required
- The current finding and action-item register
- The closure evidence cited by the closed items
- The audit, review, and meeting notes the findings were raised in
- Open issue papers and certification review items that map to register entries
- The program's status and aging reports
Common discrepancies
- An item marked closed with no evidence behind the closure
- Closure evidence that addresses a different finding than the one recorded
- A finding that was split with one part left untracked
- Duplicate entries inflating or deflating the true open-item count
- Items aged well past their due dates with ownership no longer assigned
- A closed entry contradicted by a later review note
What is at stake
A closure that does not hold reopens at the worst moment, during the audit that was meant to confirm the program was done. Each reopened item drags its dependencies back with it, the milestone slips, and the credibility of the whole register suffers once one closure is shown to be hollow, because the examiner then doubts the rest.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Reconcile status
Confirm every entry's owner, status, and due date reflect its real disposition rather than a stale meeting note.
Test closures
Read each closed item's evidence against the finding it was raised against to confirm it actually answers it.
Clean the count
Identify duplicates, orphans, and split findings so the open-item count is true.
Re-plan the reopened
Deliver a reconciled register, an aging view, and a closure plan for what the review reopened.
What the buyer receives
- A reconciled register with each closed item confirmed or reopened with the reason
- An aging view of the genuinely open items ordered by due date and exposure
- A list of closures whose evidence does not address the finding as written
- A closure plan for the items the review reopened
Who uses the output
- Certification leads defending the open-item count at a milestone
- Program managers re-planning the items the review reopened
- Quality functions confirming the register before an audit reads it
How the work fits into the transaction or program
This review treats the register as the evidence it becomes at a closure milestone rather than as a private tracker. It reconciles status against the closure evidence behind it, and it feeds the deeper evidence reviews for the specific findings whose closures it reopens.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Where a program carries findings from both an FAA process and an EASA process, the review keeps each authority's findings on its own track, because a closure that satisfies one does not discharge a matching finding raised by the other.
Regulatory limits
Endeavor Elements reconciles the applicant's register and the evidence behind its closures. It does not close findings on an authority's behalf, accept a closure as sufficient for the authority, or guarantee that an audit will agree.
What this review does not cover
- Closing findings or accepting closures on an authority's behalf
- Guaranteeing that an audit will agree with a reconciled status
- Producing the closure evidence a reopened item lacks
Specific to this review
- A register's open-item count is a derived number, so duplicates and orphaned entries can make it look better or worse than the program's real position.
- A closure note can point at a genuine document that answers a different finding than the one on the line, which a count never catches but a read against the finding text does.
- Once one closure is shown to be hollow, an examiner reasonably doubts the others, so a single bad entry costs the credibility of the whole register.
- Findings that are split during a program are a recurring gap, because the second half rarely gets its own line and quietly drops out of the count.
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.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Frequently asked questions
What makes a closure fail this review?
A closure fails when its cited evidence does not answer the finding as written, when the finding was split and a part went untracked, or when a later review note contradicts the closed status. A status of closed alone is not enough.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.