Means of compliance
Means-of-compliance map evidence review for hardware teams
This review tests the logic that connects each requirement to the evidence meant to satisfy it. A certification engineer follows the means-of-compliance map from every requirement to the means assigned and on to the evidence path, then finds the requirements that carry a means on paper but no evidence actually flowing to them. Hardware assurance teams use it before submittal, in a finding response, or after a change that redraws which requirements are met how. You receive a gap list of requirements with a broken or absent evidence path, an evidence map, and a closure sequence.
When this review is needed
- A submittal is being assembled and you need to know every requirement has evidence actually reaching it, not just a means named.
- The authority asked how a specific requirement is shown compliant and the answer has to hold.
- A change reassigned which requirements are met by test, analysis, or inspection.
- The means-of-compliance map was built early and evidence was expected to catch up but may not have.
The problem
Assigning a means of compliance is a planning act, and it happens long before the evidence exists. A requirement gets marked as shown by test or by analysis, the map fills in, and everyone treats the assignment as if it were the evidence. The gap is between naming a means and having a path from the requirement to a real result. That gap is invisible in the map itself, because the map records the intention, not whether the intention was ever fulfilled.
What gets reviewed
- Every requirement in the basis mapped to a means of compliance
- The evidence path from each means to a specific, existing result
- Requirements assigned a means with no evidence yet flowing to them
- Means assignments that do not actually suit the requirement they cover
- Reassignments made by a change and whether their evidence paths were rebuilt
- Requirements shown by multiple means and whether all paths are complete
What gets validated
- Each requirement carries a means of compliance appropriate to what it demands
- Every assigned means has an evidence path to a real, retrievable result
- No requirement is closed on the strength of an assignment alone
- Reassigned requirements have a rebuilt evidence path, not a stranded old one
- Requirements with multiple means have every path complete, not just one
Evidence normally required
- The means-of-compliance map at its current revision
- The certification basis and its requirements
- The evidence the map's paths point to
- The change history if a change reassigned any means
- The compliance matrix the map feeds
Common discrepancies
- A requirement marked shown by test with no test result on the path
- A means assignment that does not suit the requirement it is meant to cover
- A requirement reassigned by a change whose old evidence path was never rebuilt
- A multi-means requirement where only one of its paths is actually complete
What is at stake
A requirement with a means but no evidence path is an open compliance item wearing the appearance of a closed one, and it stays hidden until submittal or a finding forces the question. Discovering a cluster of these late means producing evidence under deadline, or worse, finding that the assigned means was never feasible and the requirement needs a different approach entirely.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Walk every requirement
Take each requirement in the basis and read the means the map assigns to it.
Follow the path
Trace each assigned means to a specific, existing evidence result rather than an intention.
Separate real from planned
Mark which paths are complete and which are assignments with no evidence flowing yet.
Prioritize the owed evidence
Sequence the incomplete paths so the evidence still owed is produced in a defensible order.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of requirements with a broken or absent evidence path
- An evidence map showing which paths are complete and which are intention only
- A closure sequence prioritizing the requirements whose evidence must still be produced
Who uses the output
- Hardware assurance leads confirming every requirement has evidence reaching it
- Certification leadership answering a finding on how a requirement is shown compliant
- Engineering leads scoping the evidence still owed against assigned means
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The means-of-compliance map is the logic layer between the requirements and the compliance matrix, and it is where a program decides how each requirement will be shown. Testing that each assigned means has a real evidence path behind it keeps the matrix from inheriting entries that look closed but rest on an intention nobody fulfilled.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
FAA and EASA both accept a defined set of compliance means, but they codify and label them differently, and EASA uses its own acceptable-means-of-compliance material to constrain which means suit which requirement. The review notes where a means valid for one authority would not be accepted for the same requirement by the other.
Regulatory limits
This review tests the requirement-to-evidence logic. It does not select the means of compliance, produce the evidence, or make a compliance finding. Agreement on the means and acceptance of the evidence rest with the authority.
What this review does not cover
- Choosing or approving the means of compliance for a requirement
- Producing the test, analysis, or inspection evidence a path lacks
- Any compliance finding on the means-of-compliance map
Specific to this review
- A means-of-compliance map records intention, so an assigned means reads as done even when no evidence has ever reached the requirement.
- The costliest finding is a means that was never feasible, because it forces a different compliance approach rather than just more evidence.
- Reassignment by a change is the common way a path breaks, since the new means is recorded but the old evidence link is left in place.
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
Isn't a means-of-compliance map the same as the compliance matrix?
They are close but distinct. The map is the logic that assigns a means to each requirement and defines the evidence path; the matrix records the resulting claim and its citation. The map is where an intention can sit unfulfilled, which is why it is worth testing on its own before it feeds the matrix.
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.