Conformity evidence
Conformity records evidence review for quality teams
A conformity records evidence review checks that the parts and installations behind a certification submittal were built and inspected to a controlled configuration, and that each conformity statement points to evidence a finding can rest on. Quality teams commission it before a submittal, a finding response, or a design-change review. It examines article identity, the as-built configuration, and test-article eligibility, then traces each item back to the certification basis. You receive a gap list, an evidence map, and a closure sequence quality leadership can work.
When this review is needed
- A compliance submittal is being assembled and each conformity statement has to point to a controlled build.
- A finding questions whether the article tested matches the configuration under approval.
- A design change has moved the baseline and the conformity records need to catch up to it.
- Test articles were built across more than one facility and their identity has to reconcile to one configuration.
The problem
Conformity paperwork accumulates across suppliers, build stations, and test cells, and each source describes the same article a little differently. A quality team preparing a submittal finds serial numbers that do not match between the build record and the test log, or a conformity inspection signed against a drawing revision that had already changed. The article may be right, but the paper does not prove it, and proving it after the fact takes longer than the review would have.
What gets reviewed
- Article identity reconciled across build records, conformity inspections, and test logs
- As-built configuration checked against the drawing revision in effect at build
- Test-article eligibility confirmed against the configuration under approval
- Each conformity statement traced to the certification basis it supports
- Multi-facility builds reconciled to a single controlled configuration
- Open conformity items sequenced by their effect on the submittal
What gets validated
- Serial and part numbers agree between the build record, the conformity inspection, and the test article
- Each conformity inspection cites the drawing revision that was actually in effect at the time of build
- The tested article's configuration matches the configuration named in the compliance claim
- Every conformity statement traces to a certification-basis requirement rather than standing alone
- Deviations and nonconformances carry disposition evidence before the article is called conforming
Evidence normally required
- Conformity inspection records and the associated FAA Form 8130-3 or EASA Form 1 where issued
- Build travelers, work orders, and the drawing revisions they were worked to
- Test-article configuration lists and the test logs that reference them
- The certification basis and the compliance claims the conformity supports
- Deviation and nonconformance dispositions raised during build
Common discrepancies
- A test article whose serial number does not appear in any build or conformity record on file
- A conformity inspection signed against a drawing revision superseded before the article shipped
- A nonconformance dispositioned informally, with no evidence carried into the conformity statement
- Two facilities building to configurations that diverge on a detail the compliance claim depends on
What is at stake
A submittal built on conformity records that do not reconcile invites a finding on the very evidence meant to close one. If a test article cannot be tied to the approved configuration, the result it produced may not count, and a re-test or a re-inspection is far more expensive than confirming identity before the package goes out.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Pull the claimed conformity
Assemble the conformity statements, build records, and test-article lists behind the submittal.
Reconcile identity
Match serial and part numbers across build, conformity, and test records for each article.
Check configuration and basis
Confirm each article was built to the effective revision and its conformity ties to the certification basis.
Sequence the gaps
List the items that do not yet trace and order them by their effect on the submittal.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list naming each conformity item that does not yet trace to a controlled build
- An evidence map linking conformity statements to the certification-basis requirements they support
- A closure sequence ordering the gaps by their effect on the submittal date
Who uses the output
- Quality leadership deciding whether the conformity evidence is ready to submit
- Certification engineers responding to a finding on article identity or configuration
- Engineering teams reconciling a design change against the conformity records behind it
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The review sits between build completion and the compliance submittal, where conformity evidence is packaged for a finding. Its gap list feeds the remediation the quality team runs before the package goes to the authority, and its evidence map becomes the index a reviewer follows from claim to article.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
Conformity is documented on an FAA Form 8130-3 in the United States and an EASA Form 1 in Europe, and the two systems phrase article eligibility differently. A review that has to support both authorities notes where a conformity statement acceptable to one needs restating for the other rather than assuming the paper carries across.
Regulatory limits
The review reconciles conformity records to a controlled configuration and to the certification basis. It does not issue a conformity finding, sign a conformity statement, or determine that an article is airworthy or approved.
What this review does not cover
- Performing the conformity inspection or signing the release paperwork
- Approving a deviation or dispositioning a nonconformance
- Any airworthiness or eligibility determination on a test article
Specific to this review
- Article identity breaks most often at a facility boundary, where the same part is serialized or described under two systems.
- A conformity inspection is only as strong as the drawing revision it cites, so a revision that moved mid-build is a frequent quiet gap.
- A test result is worthless to a finding if the article that produced it cannot be tied to the approved configuration, no matter how clean the test was.
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.
European Union / EASA. EASA design and production certification, STCs, ETSO authorizations, and EASA Form 1 release.
Frequently asked questions
We already have conformity inspections signed off. What does this add?
A signed conformity inspection confirms an article met a drawing at a moment in time. This review confirms that drawing was the effective revision, that the same article is the one that was tested, and that the conformity statement traces to the certification basis. Those links are what a finding tests, and they are where signed paperwork most often falls short.
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.