Conformity
Conformity records evidence review for qualification test teams
A conformity records evidence review checks that the articles and installations a program tested were conforming to a controlled configuration, so the results built on them are eligible. It is run for a qualification test team before submittal, a finding response, or a change that reopens what was tested. The reviewer confirms each test article's identity, configuration, and conformity status, then ties it to the result it produced, catching results generated on hardware with no conformity backing them. You receive a gap list of results resting on non-conforming or untraceable articles, an article-to-result map, and a closure order.
When this review is needed
- The qualification results are heading to the authority and the test articles' conformity has not been confirmed.
- A finding questioned whether an article was conforming when a particular test was run.
- A test rig or installation was modified between campaigns and its conformity has to be re-established.
- Results were carried over from an earlier build and the article's eligibility has to be shown.
The problem
A result is only as good as the article it was produced on, and conformity is what proves the article was eligible. The failure is that testing often runs ahead of, or in parallel with, conformity, so an article gets exercised before its conformity is fully established, or a rig is tweaked mid-campaign and the conformity record does not follow. The report looks authoritative, but the hardware behind it cannot be tied to a controlled configuration, which quietly disqualifies the result.
What gets reviewed
- Test article identity confirmed against the configuration it was meant to represent
- Article conformity status established as of the date each test ran
- Installations and test rigs tied to a controlled configuration
- Results mapped to the specific article that produced them
- Modifications to articles between campaigns confirmed to have re-established conformity
- Carried-over results confirmed to rest on an article whose eligibility can be shown
What gets validated
- Each test article's identity resolves to a defined, controlled configuration
- Conformity was established before, not after, the test that relies on the article
- Rig and installation modifications are reflected in an updated conformity record
- Every result maps to a specific article whose conformity is documented
- Carried-over results rest on an article whose eligibility is still demonstrable
Evidence normally required
- The conformity records and inspection results for the test articles
- Article identity, part number, and configuration data
- The test reports and the articles they were produced on
- Rig and installation configuration records
- The change record for articles modified between campaigns
Common discrepancies
- A result produced on an article before its conformity was established
- A rig modified between campaigns with no updated conformity record
- A test article whose identity cannot be tied to a controlled configuration
- A carried-over result on an article whose eligibility can no longer be shown
What is at stake
A result produced on a non-conforming article is a finding that can void the test, and voided qualification usually means a rerun on a conforming article, which is slow and needs lab time. If the article's identity cannot be reconstructed at all, the result may be unrecoverable and the requirement reopens with nothing behind it. These findings tend to appear in clusters, because the same conformity gap affects every test that used the article.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Establish article identity
Tie each test article to a defined, controlled configuration it was meant to represent.
Check conformity timing
Confirm conformity was established before the test that relies on the article, not after.
Map results to articles
Link each result to the specific article and confirm rig or installation changes updated the record.
Order the retests
Rank results resting on non-conforming articles by the retest each requires.
What the buyer receives
- A gap list of results resting on non-conforming or untraceable articles
- An article-to-result map tying each result to a conforming article
- A closure order ranking gaps by the retest each would require
Who uses the output
- Test leadership deciding which results need a rerun on a conforming article
- Certification leadership answering an authority on article eligibility
- Engineering leads re-establishing conformity on a modified rig or installation
How the work fits into the transaction or program
Conformity is the foundation the verification and qualification results stand on, so this review confirms the articles before the results are credited in the package. It pairs closely with the configuration management review: one confirms the evidence points at the released configuration, the other confirms the hardware that produced the evidence conformed to it. A conformity gap reopens the verification-trace pass for every result the article touched.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA both require conformity for the articles that produce certification evidence, but the two differ in how conformity is witnessed and documented, and in the role their designees play. The review notes where a conformity record acceptable to one authority would need additional witnessing or documentation for the other on a dual-validation program.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms that test articles tie to a controlled configuration and that results rest on eligible hardware. It does not perform conformity inspections, issue a conformity finding, or determine compliance. Establishing conformity and accepting the evidence rest with the authority and its designees.
What this review does not cover
- Performing or witnessing conformity inspections
- Issuing a conformity determination on an article
- Any compliance determination on the qualification results
Specific to this review
- Conformity gaps cluster, because a single unconforming article strands every test that ran on it, rather than one result alone.
- Testing frequently outruns conformity, so an article gets exercised before its eligibility is fully established, which the report never shows.
- If an article's identity cannot be reconstructed, the result may be unrecoverable, which is worse than a rerun because there is no article to rerun on.
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
The test reports are signed and complete. Why check the articles behind them?
A complete report still depends on the article being conforming when the test ran. If conformity was established late or a rig was modified without an updated record, the result rests on hardware that cannot be tied to a controlled configuration, which can void it regardless of how the report reads.
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.