Certification evidence
Hardware configuration index evidence review for DO-254
This review is for avionics suppliers, equipment suppliers, Engineering teams responsible for hardware configuration index. It is triggered by hardware design release. EE checks HCI entries against released drawings, HDL baselines, programming files, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-254. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or programming files regenerated after verification with no re-baseline. Output includes Hardware configuration index exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The team is preparing for hardware design release.
- Supplier records and applicant records must be reconciled.
- Program leads need to know which findings could block the next gate.
- A proposed means of compliance depends on evidence reuse, analysis, or rationale.
The problem
Reviewers need to reconstruct the path from final claim to source data. For hardware configuration index, weak files usually show programming files regenerated after verification with no re-baseline, then reveal revision drift or unclosed assumptions.
What gets reviewed
- Review hCI entries against released drawings against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare hDL baselines against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace programming files against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge hECI tool versions against synthesis against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile -route logs against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm programmed-device marking against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: hCI entries against released drawings must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: hDL baselines must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: programming files must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: hECI tool versions against synthesis must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: -route logs must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled hCI entries against released drawings
- Released hDL baselines
- Signed programming files
- Current hECI tool versions against synthesis
- Archived -route logs
- Supplier programmed-device marking
Common discrepancies
- Gap: programming files regenerated after verification with no re-baseline.
- Mismatch: device markings that cannot be traced to a programming file revision.
- Unsupported claim: test benches.
- Late issue: scripts absent from the index so results cannot be reproduced.
What is at stake
An unresolved gap can become a finding, a deferred submittal, or a narrower claim. Missing support for device markings that cannot be traced to a programming file revision often affects several records at once.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Hardware Configuration
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any hci entries against released drawings is treated as sufficient.
Trace Review Evidence
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 Certification Drawings
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Programmed Devices
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
- Hardware configuration index exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- hardware lead assign closure actions from the exception register.
- configuration manager use the map to locate source evidence.
- quality manager decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Does the hardware configuration index and environment index tie the approved design to the physical devices being shipped. The evidence set centers on HCI entries against released drawings, HDL baselines, netlists and programming files, HECI tool versions against synthesis and place-and-route logs, and programmed-device marking and records. The likely weak points are programming files regenerated after verification with no re-baseline, device markings that cannot be traced to a programming file revision, and test benches and scripts absent from the index so results cannot be reproduced. The output gives the hardware lead a cleanup register for Hardware configuration index before hardware design release.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
This review is not an approval activity. Final findings, acceptance, installation approval, and airworthiness decisions remain with the responsible applicant, authorized representatives, and authorities.
What this review does not cover
- Authority negotiations as decision maker
- Compliance finding approval
- Test execution or article build
- Operator airworthiness 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: programming files regenerated after verification with no re-baseline changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Hardware Configuration Index Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Hardware design release and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with HCI entries against released drawings and follows Evidence 254 Certification Drawings 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 hardware 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 Netlists Programmed Devices Tied questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Hardware configuration index 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 hardware configuration index 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 hardware design release or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is hci entries against released drawings, 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 hardware 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.