Compliance matrix
Compliance matrix evidence review for hardware assurance teams
This review checks that a compliance matrix still means what it claims. A certification engineer works down the matrix and confirms each entry names a means of compliance, cites evidence that exists at the current revision, and ties to a live requirement in the certification basis. Hardware assurance teams use it before submittal, when answering a finding, or after a change that could strand matrix entries against stale evidence. You get a gap list of entries whose evidence no longer supports the claim, an evidence map, and a closure sequence.
When this review is needed
- A compliance matrix is about to go to the authority and no one has re-checked the evidence each entry cites.
- The authority questioned whether a cited document still substantiates the compliance claim.
- A design change or a document revision may have stranded entries against superseded evidence.
- The certification basis moved and the matrix has to be re-checked against the current requirements.
The problem
A compliance matrix is built early and cited throughout, and evidence moves under it the whole time. A report gets revised, a test gets rerun, a requirement in the basis changes, and the matrix entry still points at the old citation. On the surface every row shows a means and a reference, so the matrix reads as complete, while some fraction of it now cites evidence that no longer says what the claim needs it to say.
What gets reviewed
- Coverage of the certification basis, with every applicable requirement represented in the matrix
- A stated means of compliance for each requirement appropriate to its nature
- The evidence each entry cites, checked to exist at the revision the matrix names
- Whether cited evidence still substantiates the claim after any revision to it
- Alignment of each entry to the current certification basis, not a superseded one
- Entries whose evidence is planned but not yet produced, flagged as open
What gets validated
- Every applicable requirement in the basis has a corresponding matrix entry
- Each entry names a means of compliance suited to the requirement
- Cited evidence exists at the revision the entry references and can be retrieved
- The cited evidence still supports the claim after any revision to that document
- No entry points at a requirement the certification basis has since changed or removed
Evidence normally required
- The compliance matrix at the revision proposed for submittal
- The certification basis and its current requirements
- The evidence documents the matrix entries cite
- The revision history of the cited evidence
- The change history if a design change prompted the review
Common discrepancies
- A matrix entry citing a report revision that has since been superseded
- An applicable basis requirement with no corresponding entry in the matrix
- A means of compliance that does not fit the requirement it is assigned to
- An entry pointing at a requirement the certification basis has changed
What is at stake
A matrix entry that cites stale or missing evidence is a compliance claim the authority cannot accept, and matrices are read row by row, so each broken entry is a discrete finding. Discovering it during review means answering findings serially instead of fixing the matrix once, which drags the submittal out and burns the schedule the matrix was supposed to protect.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Check coverage against the basis
Confirm every applicable requirement in the current basis has a matrix entry.
Test each citation
Retrieve the evidence each entry names and confirm it exists at the cited revision.
Re-substantiate the claim
Check that the cited evidence still supports the claim after any revision to it.
Order the fixes
List the broken entries and sequence the re-citation before the matrix goes out.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of matrix entries whose evidence no longer supports the claim
- An evidence map linking each entry to the current document that substantiates it
- A closure sequence ordering the entries to re-cite or re-substantiate before submittal
Who uses the output
- Hardware assurance leads confirming the matrix is submittal-ready
- Certification leadership answering a finding on a compliance claim
- Engineering leads re-substantiating entries a change or revision stranded
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The compliance matrix is the index the authority reads the whole submittal through, mapping the basis to the evidence. Re-checking it before submittal means each row still resolves to current evidence against a live requirement, so the matrix guides the review instead of generating a string of findings.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both work from a compliance matrix or checklist against the certification basis, but the basis itself differs, and EASA certification review items can add requirements the FAA basis does not carry. The review notes where an entry adequate for one authority's basis leaves a gap against the other's.
Regulatory limits
This review reads the matrix and its cited evidence for currency and coverage. It does not make a compliance finding, accept a means of compliance, or approve any entry. Those determinations rest with the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Producing the evidence a matrix entry is missing
- Selecting or approving the means of compliance for a requirement
- Any compliance finding on the matrix
Specific to this review
- A compliance matrix is read row by row at review, so a stale citation is a discrete finding rather than a rounding error.
- Evidence moves under the matrix throughout the program, so an entry that was correct when written can be wrong by submittal without any edit to the row.
- A changed certification basis strands entries silently, because the row still looks valid while the requirement it points to has moved.
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.
Frequently asked questions
The matrix looks complete already. What does the review add?
A matrix that shows a means and a citation in every row can still be full of entries pointing at superseded documents or changed requirements. The review tests each citation against the current evidence and basis, which is the part a completed-looking matrix hides.
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.