Certification evidence
Partitioning isolation analysis evidence review for DO-178C, DO-297
This review is for avionics suppliers, OEMs, Engineering teams responsible for partitioning isolation analysis. It is triggered by mixed-DAL integration on shared hardware. EE checks partitioning analysis against the processor, RTOS architecture, shared resource inventory, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-178C, DO-297. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or isolation claims resting on RTOS vendor marketing rather than verified configuration. Output includes Partitioning isolation analysis exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The team is preparing for mixed-DAL integration on shared hardware.
- Supplier records and applicant records must be reconciled.
- Program leads need to know which findings could block the next gate.
- A proposed means of compliance depends on evidence reuse, analysis, or rationale.
The problem
Reviewers need to reconstruct the path from final claim to source data. For partitioning isolation analysis, weak files usually show isolation claims resting on RTOS vendor marketing rather than verified configuration, then reveal revision drift or unclosed assumptions.
What gets reviewed
- Review partitioning analysis against the processor against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare rTOS architecture against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace shared resource inventory against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge protection mechanism verification results against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile tie between partitioning claims against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm dAL allocation that depends on them. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: partitioning analysis against the processor must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: rTOS architecture must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: shared resource inventory must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: protection mechanism verification results must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: tie between partitioning claims must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled partitioning analysis against the processor
- Released rTOS architecture
- Signed shared resource inventory
- Current protection mechanism verification results
- Archived tie between partitioning claims
- Supplier dAL allocation that depends on them.
Common discrepancies
- Gap: isolation claims resting on RTOS vendor marketing rather than verified configuration.
- Mismatch: interference channels like shared cache.
- Unsupported claim: dMA never inventoried.
- Late issue: health monitoring responses never tested for the partition-breach case.
What is at stake
An unresolved gap can become a finding, a deferred submittal, or a narrower claim. Missing support for interference channels like shared cache often affects several records at once.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame durable Partitioning
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any partitioning analysis against the processor is treated as sufficient.
Trace Review Isolation
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 178c 297
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Claims Interference
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
- Partitioning isolation analysis exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- software architect assign closure actions from the exception register.
- systems engineer 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
Does the partitioning analysis prove that lower-DAL partitions cannot corrupt higher-DAL functions in space, time, or I/O. The evidence set centers on the partitioning analysis against the processor and RTOS architecture, shared resource inventory (memory, cache, DMA, interrupts, I/O), protection mechanism verification results, and the tie between partitioning claims and the DAL allocation that depends on them. The likely weak points are isolation claims resting on RTOS vendor marketing rather than verified configuration,. The output gives the software architect a cleanup register for Partitioning isolation analysis before mixed-DAL integration on shared hardware.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
This review is not an approval activity. Final findings, acceptance, installation approval, and airworthiness decisions remain with the responsible applicant, authorized representatives, and authorities.
What this review does not cover
- Authority negotiations as decision maker
- Compliance finding approval
- Test execution or article build
- Operator airworthiness release
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: isolation claims resting on RTOS vendor marketing rather than verified configuration changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the durable Partitioning Analysis Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Mixed-DAL integration on shared hardware and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Partitioning analysis against the processor and follows Isolation Evidence 178c 297 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 software architect: 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 Certification Claims Interference Reality questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Partitioning isolation analysis exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to durable partitioning analysis 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 mixed-dal integration on shared hardware or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is partitioning analysis against the processor, 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 software architect 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.