Means-of-compliance map evidence review for quality teams

When this review is needed

• Method assignments are locking for a submittal and quality wants each one checked for a real evidence route.
• A finding challenges whether a chosen method can actually substantiate the requirement it is assigned to.
• A design change reassigns methods and the map now mixes old and new logic no one has reconciled.
• The map was built across teams and no one has confirmed every requirement carries both a method and a path.

The problem

Assigning a means of compliance is quick; making it real is not. A requirement gets tagged for test, analysis, or inspection early, when the label satisfies a review milestone, and the actual evidence route is left for later. Later arrives, the method is on the map, but no artifact is planned to fulfill it, and quality is left with a map that looks decided while a share of its requirements dead-end at a method with no way to reach evidence.

What gets reviewed

• Each requirement in the basis confirmed to carry a means-of-compliance assignment, with none left unassigned
• The assigned method checked for suitability against the requirement it is meant to satisfy
• Each assignment traced forward to the planned evidence artifact that will fulfill the method
• Requirements sorted into those with a complete path, a partial path, and a method but no path
• Mixed old and new assignments from design changes reconciled so the map reflects one consistent logic

What gets validated

• Every basis requirement carries a means-of-compliance assignment, with no requirement silently unmethoded
• The assigned method suits the requirement rather than defaulting to whatever was easiest to write down
• Each assignment traces to a named evidence artifact, planned or produced, not to an empty method label
• Requirements reassigned by a change carry a single current method, not a residue of the superseded one
• The assignment logic matches the certification basis, so no method is chosen against a requirement it cannot address

Evidence normally required

• The means-of-compliance map as currently maintained
• The certification basis and the requirement set it drives
• The compliance approach or means-of-compliance agreement for the project
• The evidence plan or data list showing which artifacts each method will produce
• Change records for any requirement whose method was reassigned

Common discrepancies

• A requirement assigned a method but with no artifact planned to fulfill it
• A method label left on a requirement after a change reassigned it, so two methods now compete
• An assignment defaulted to analysis where the requirement actually needs a test result
• A basis requirement with no assignment at all, missed because the map tracks methods rather than requirements

What is at stake

A method with no evidence path is a gap that stays invisible until someone asks for the substantiation. The reviewer accepts the method in principle, then asks for the record it produces, and there is none because none was ever planned. Requirements that looked handled reopen late, when re-assigning a method drags schedule with it, and the credibility of the whole map suffers from the assignments that never had a route.

How the work runs

What the buyer receives

• A gap list naming each requirement whose method has no evidence path or no assignment at all
• An evidence map linking every assignment to the artifact meant to fulfill it
• A closure sequence ordering the fixes so unassigned and dead-end requirements are handled first

Who uses the output

• Quality leadership deciding whether the method assignments are sound enough to build evidence on
• Certification engineers who need to know which assignments to give a real path or reassign
• Program planners reconciling the evidence plan against the methods the map commits to

How the work fits into the transaction or program

The means-of-compliance map is the bridge between the requirements and the evidence, so a method with no path breaks the chain before any artifact is even produced. This review runs while assignments are still adjustable, so quality closes the dead ends before the evidence effort is built on a method that was never going to reach a record.

Jurisdiction-specific considerations

FAA and EASA name and accept methods of compliance through different channels: FAA project guidance and delegated findings on one side, EASA acceptable means of compliance and certification review items on the other. A map serving both has to satisfy each authority's expectation for how a method is justified, so the review reads the assignments against whichever framework the program is filing under.

Regulatory limits

This review reads your means-of-compliance map and reports where an assignment reaches evidence and where it dead-ends. It does not accept a proposed method, does not issue or accept a compliance finding, and does not replace the authority's or the delegate's review of the methods you propose.

What this review does not cover

• Choosing or authoring the method for a requirement on the program's behalf
• Producing the evidence a dead-end assignment lacks
• Accepting a means of compliance, which the authority reserves

Specific to this review

• A method assigned to a requirement is not the same as an evidence path for it, and the gap between the two is where this map most often fails.
• Unassigned requirements hide because the map is usually reviewed for its methods, not for the requirements that carry none.
• A design change that reassigns a method rarely removes the old label cleanly, so two competing methods can sit on one requirement.
• Defaulting an assignment to analysis because it is cheap to write down commits the program to substantiation the requirement may not actually accept.

Sources

Frequently asked questions

Relevant glossary terms

Related pages

Where this fits