Certification evidence
System development plan evidence review for ARP4754B
This review is for OEMs, avionics suppliers, Certification teams responsible for system development plan. It is triggered by development assurance audit scheduled. EE checks lifecycle definition, transition criteria, DAL assignment approach, plus the governing plan or application, against ARP4754B. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or transition criteria the program has already violated. Output includes System development plan exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names system development plan 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 the development plan describe the process the program actually follows, because auditors find the gap between plan and practice faster than any technical defect, especially where transition criteria the program has already violated.
What gets reviewed
- Review lifecycle definition against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare transition criteria against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace dAL assignment approach against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge requirements capture against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile validation strategy against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm supplier oversight provisions against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: lifecycle definition must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: transition criteria must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: dAL assignment approach must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: requirements capture must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: validation strategy must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled lifecycle definition
- Released transition criteria
- Signed dAL assignment approach
- Current requirements capture
- Archived validation strategy
- Supplier supplier oversight provisions
Common discrepancies
- Gap: transition criteria the program has already violated.
- Mismatch: supplier development assurance never flowed down in purchase orders.
- Unsupported claim: plan revision frozen years before the process changed.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when supplier development assurance never flowed down in purchase orders, 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 System Development
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any lifecycle definition 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 Process
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package One Run
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
- System development plan exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- program manager assign closure actions from the exception register.
- systems engineering manager use the map to locate source evidence.
- certification manager decide what can proceed and what must wait.
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Does the development plan describe the process the program actually follows, because auditors find the gap between plan and practice faster than any technical defect. The evidence set centers on lifecycle definition and transition criteria, DAL assignment approach, requirements capture and validation strategy, supplier oversight provisions, and integration with the safety program. The likely weak points are transition criteria the program has already violated, supplier development assurance never flowed down in purchase orders, and a plan revision frozen years before the process changed. The output gives the program manager a cleanup register for System development plan before development assurance audit.
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: transition criteria the program has already violated changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the System Development Plan Review question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Development assurance audit scheduled and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Lifecycle definition and follows Evidence Arp4754b Certification Process 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 program manager: 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 Promised One Run Practice questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from System development plan 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 system development plan 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 development assurance audit scheduled or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is lifecycle definition, 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 program manager 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.