Certification evidence
Qualification by analysis substantiation evidence review for DO-160G
This review is for equipment suppliers, avionics suppliers, Engineering teams responsible for qualification by analysis substantiation. It is triggered by requalification or test-reduction decision. EE checks analysis method, its validation basis, assumptions, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-160G. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or analysis used where a test is the accepted MoC. Output includes Qualification by analysis substantiation exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names qualification by analysis substantiation as a required deliverable.
- The review notes that evidence was carried forward from another configuration or installation.
- The authority or authorized representative is expected to sample the records.
- Open questions need to be separated from editorial cleanup.
The problem
File volume does not settle the question. The package must show why the evidence proves is a qualification-by-analysis argument valid in place of a DO-160 test, because analysis is acceptable only where the physics is well-bounded and the method validated, and authorities reject it where a test is the expected means, especially where analysis used where a test is the accepted MoC.
What gets reviewed
- Review analysis method against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare its validation basis against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace assumptions against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge bounding conditions against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile correlation to any available test or similarity data against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm specific DO-160 sections claimed by analysis versus test. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: analysis method must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: its validation basis must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: assumptions must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: bounding conditions must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: correlation to any available test or similarity data must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled analysis method
- Released its validation basis
- Signed assumptions
- Current bounding conditions
- Archived correlation to any available test or similarity data
- Supplier specific DO-160 sections claimed by analysis versus test.
Common discrepancies
- Gap: analysis used where a test is the accepted MoC.
- Mismatch: unvalidated models presented as fact.
- Unsupported claim: bounding assumptions that the installation violates.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when unvalidated models presented as fact, because closure may touch configuration control and engineering rationale.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Qualification Analysis
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any analysis method 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 Replace
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Test Cannot
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
- Qualification by analysis substantiation exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- qualification engineer assign closure actions from the exception register.
- analysis lead use the map to locate source evidence.
- certification liaison decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Is a qualification-by-analysis argument valid in place of a DO-160 test, because analysis is acceptable only where the physics is well-bounded and the method validated, and authorities reject it where a test is the expected means. The evidence set centers on the analysis method and its validation basis, the assumptions and bounding conditions, correlation to any available test or similarity data, and the specific DO-160 sections claimed by analysis versus test. The likely weak points are analysis used where a test is the accepted MoC, unvalidated models presented as fact, and bounding assumptions that the installation violates; Distinct from the round-1 qualification-by-similarity-justification-review (which credits prior test data) - this credits analysis in lieu of test. The output gives the qualification engineer a cleanup register for Qualification by analysis substantiation before requalification or test-reduction decision.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
EE provides an evidence-quality assessment only. The work does not certify an article, sign a finding, approve a plan, or decide regulatory acceptance.
What this review does not cover
- Plan approval
- DER or DOA signature
- Conformity inspection
- Supplier selection
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: analysis used where a test is the accepted MoC changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Qualification Analysis Substantiation Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Requalification or test-reduction decision and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Analysis method and follows Evidence 160g Certification Replace 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 qualification engineer: 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 160 Test Cannot Argument questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Qualification by analysis substantiation exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
SAE International. Safety assessment methods (FHA, PSSA, SSA, FTA, FMEA) supporting development assurance level assignment.
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to qualification analysis substantiation 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 requalification or test-reduction decision or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is analysis method, 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 qualification engineer 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.