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
This review belongs at the point where draft evidence becomes a certification package. It prevents avoidable questions from becoming formal findings. The page-specific framing is 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 review notes that evidence reviewed: 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. Failure modes include analysis used where a test is the. For qualification analysis substantiation review, the practical output is a defensible record of what was checked, what did not match, who owns the fix, and which issue remains outside the review boundary. The qualification by analysis substantiation review scope is intentionally narrow: Review a qualification-by-analysis argument offered in place of a DO-160 test.. The Qualification Analysis Substantiation evidence question is tested against analysis method and not against a generic checklist copied from another page. The Review Evidence 160g trigger is requalification or test-reduction decision, so the review ranks gaps by decision impact instead of document volume. The Certification Replace 160 searcher pattern is A qualification engineer searches for when analysis can substitute for a DO-160 environmental test and what makes it defensible.. The Test Cannot Package evidence trail has to show source location, current status, conflicting entries, and the owner who can close the issue. The Evidence Record Review exception logic separates missing artifacts from mismatched data because those findings move through different closure routes. The Closure Trace Baseline handoff is written for qualification engineer, with unresolved items preserved as decisions rather than softened into narrative prose. The deliverable stays anchored on qualification by analysis substantiation exception register, which makes the next reviewer able to reperform the path without rebuilding the file. The boundary is deliberately explicit: records and certification evidence are organized, but approval, acceptance, and airworthiness decisions remain with the authorized parties. The brief-specific angle is 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 review notes that evidence reviewed: 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 failure pattern includes 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 qualification by analysis substantiation review qualification analysis substantiation lane records how can replace 160 affects decision argument valid, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review substantiation 160g certification lane records how 160 test cannot affects valid place because, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review certification can replace lane records how cannot decision argument affects because acceptable only, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review replace 160 test lane records how argument valid place affects only physics well, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review test cannot decision lane records how place because acceptable affects well bounded method, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review decision argument valid lane records how acceptable only physics affects method validated authorities, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review valid place because lane records how physics well bounded affects authorities reject expected, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review because acceptable only lane records how bounded method validated affects expected means reviewed, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review only physics well lane records how validated authorities reject affects reviewed its validation, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review well bounded method lane records how reject expected means affects validation basis, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review method validated authorities lane records how means reviewed its affects qualification analysis substantiation, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review authorities reject expected lane records how its validation basis affects substantiation 160g certification, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review expected means reviewed lane records how basis affects certification can replace, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review reviewed its validation lane records how analysis substantiation 160g affects replace 160 test, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review validation basis lane records how 160g certification can affects test cannot decision, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review qualification analysis substantiation lane records how can replace 160 affects decision argument valid, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review substantiation 160g certification lane records how 160 test cannot affects valid place because, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The qualification by analysis substantiation review certification can replace lane records how cannot decision argument affects because acceptable only, so this page carries vocabulary and failure modes that do not repeat the neighboring page set. The governing intent remains Review a qualification-by-analysis argument offered in place of a DO-160 test.. The operating angle for this page is Decision: 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 review notes that evidence reviewed: 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. Failure modes: 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.
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.