DO-178C evidence
Open item review for final certification problem reports
For certification managers, software QA, and quality managers, this page is used this page when Final certification review approaching depends on records that have moved across revisions, suppliers, or workstreams. EE checks open problem report list, SAS, HAS, safety effect analysis against the applicable basis, plan language, and source records. Findings are written as evidence gaps, not approval decisions. The deliverable is a ranked discrepancy log with the evidence trail needed for closure.
When this review is needed
- Final certification review approaching has created a gate where document titles are no longer enough.
- Program leaders need a ranked list of open problem report review blockers rather than another unfiltered file dump.
- The review notes that evidence was copied from earlier work and its applicability must be tested.
- Authority, DER, ODA, or internal reviewers are expected to sample the record trail.
The problem
Teams usually know the files exist, but they do not always know whether open problem report list still agrees with safety effect analysis. That uncertainty burns review time when a sampled citation fails.
What gets reviewed
- Inventory open problem report list and record its source, owner, and controlled revision.
- Match SAS against the current baseline and the applicable plan language.
- Follow HAS through downstream reports, summaries, and closure notes.
- Flag safety effect analysis when it refers to a superseded configuration or unresolved deviation.
- List missing source records needed before reviewers can rely on the package.
What gets validated
- A cited record passes only if its identifier, title, and revision match the controlled index.
- Configuration alignment is tested between open problem report list and safety effect analysis; conflicting serials, drawings, or baselines fail.
- The review notes that evidence type is checked against the claim, so analysis cannot silently replace a promised test or inspection.
- Exceptions without an owner, due path, or technical disposition fail the gate.
- Downstream documents are sampled for references that still point to superseded material.
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- Failure modes: PRs downgraded to no-effect with no analysis.
- duplicate reports masking a systemic defect.
- OPRs missing from the accomplishment summary entirely.
- operational workarounds never communicated in installation or operating documentation.
What is at stake
Late discovery turns a records problem into a program problem. Reviewers may pause sampling, ask for a corrected baseline, or require new evidence before the package can move forward.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Open Problem
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any problem report list with open items is treated as sufficient.
Trace Review Item
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 Reports
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Evidence Opr
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
- Gap log for open problem report review
- Cross reference table
- Document retrieval list
- Disposition worksheet
- Submittal readiness note
Who uses the output
- certification manager decides which exceptions block the next gate.
- software QA updates the plan, matrix, or report index.
- quality manager tracks owner responses through closure.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Can the program defend every problem report left open at certification. The evidence set centers on the OPR list against the SAS and HAS, classification and safety-effect justifications, workaround descriptions and their visibility to installers and operators, and deferred-fix commitments. The likely weak points are PRs downgraded to no-effect with no analysis, duplicate reports masking a systemic defect, OPRs missing from the accomplishment summary entirely, and operational workarounds never communicated in installation or operating documentation. The output gives the certification manager a cleanup register for Open item review for final certification problem reports before final certification review approaching.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
The review is an evidence and consistency check only. EE does not approve data, accept certification credit, make airworthiness determinations, or act for FAA, EASA, a DER, a DAR, or an ODA unit member.
What this review does not cover
- Design approval
- Regulatory acceptance decisions
- Laboratory testing or retesting
- Acting as DER, DAR, ODA unit member, or authority
Specific to this review
- safety effect analysis is often where stale evidence surfaces first, because reports preserve old titles long after plans change.
- A complete index is weaker than a resolved index; the review asks whether each citation can actually be used.
- Supplier or lab records need the same baseline discipline as internal certification data.
- A discrepancy should name the blocked decision, not merely the document where the problem was found.
- The scope uses the Open Problem Report Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Final certification review approaching and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with problem report list with open items and follows Item Final Certification Reports 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 178c Evidence Opr Dispositions questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Gap log for open problem report review; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to open problem report 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 final certification review approaching or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is problem report list with open items, 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
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.