Certification evidence
Tool classification and TQL determination evidence review for DO-330, DO-178C
This review is for avionics suppliers, equipment suppliers, Engineering teams responsible for tool classification and TQL determination. It is triggered by tool qualification planning in the PSAC. EE checks tool list with claimed credit per tool, criteria determination, resulting TQL against the software level, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-330, DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or development tools misfiled as verification tools to dodge TQL-1 through 3. Output includes Tool classification and TQL determination exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- Submittal planning has reached the tool classification and TQL determination evidence package.
- A reviewer has questioned one cited claim or missing source record.
- A change to configuration, installation, or intended use may affect prior evidence.
- The program needs an exception list before formal review.
The problem
The hard part is proving is each tool correctly classified against the DO-330 criteria and assigned the right qualification level for the credit being claimed at the software level with records that match the reviewed configuration. A tidy index still fails if development tools misfiled as verification tools to dodge TQL-1 through 3 or if the cited record belongs to another baseline.
What gets reviewed
- Review tool list with claimed credit per tool against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare criteria determination against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace resulting TQL against the software level against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge scope of Tool Operational Requirements versus how the tool is actually used. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: tool list with claimed credit per tool must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: criteria determination must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: resulting TQL against the software level must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: scope of Tool Operational Requirements versus how the tool is actually used. must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
- Controlled tool list with claimed credit per tool
- Released criteria determination
- Signed resulting TQL against the software level
- Current scope of Tool Operational Requirements versus how the tool is actually used.
- Archived plan revision
- Supplier trace matrix
Common discrepancies
- Gap: development tools misfiled as verification tools to dodge TQL-1 through 3.
- Mismatch: credit claimed for tool functions the TOR never covered.
- Unsupported claim: tool versions drifting after qualification.
What is at stake
Late discovery can reopen tests, analysis, or plan wording after schedules have already assumed closure. The worst cases involve credit claimed for tool functions the TOR never covered because they need technical support, not cleaner prose.
Move from findings to resolution
Identify gaps against the means of compliance.
How the work runs
Frame Tool Classification
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any tool list with claimed credit per tool is treated as sufficient.
Trace Determination Review
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 330 178c
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Credit Claimed
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
- Tool classification and TQL determination exception register
- Claim to evidence map
- Reviewer question list
- Closure action plan
Who uses the output
- software lead assign closure actions from the exception register.
- tool owner 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
Is each tool correctly classified against the DO-330 criteria and assigned the right qualification level for the credit being claimed at the software level. The evidence set centers on the tool list with claimed credit per tool, criteria determination (whether tool output is verified, whether it could insert or fail to detect errors), the resulting TQL against the software level, and the scope of Tool Operational Requirements versus how the tool is actually used. The likely weak points are development tools misfiled as verification tools to dodge TQL-1 through 3, credit claimed for tool functions the TOR never covered, and tool versions drifting after qualification. The output gives the software lead a cleanup register for Tool classification and TQL determination before tool qualification planning in the PSAC.
Start with a single asset
Confirm requirements trace through verification.
Regulatory limits
EE organizes evidence and exceptions; it does not approve data, make compliance findings, determine airworthiness, or replace the applicant, designee, design organization, or authority.
What this review does not cover
- Regulatory approval or acceptance
- Design ownership or finding signature
- Physical conformity inspection
- Laboratory testing or manufacturing
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: development tools misfiled as verification tools to dodge TQL-1 through 3 changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Tool Classification Tql Determination question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Tool qualification planning in the PSAC and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with Tool list with claimed credit per tool and follows Review Evidence 330 178c 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 lead: 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 Credit Claimed Criteria questions in the records or certification lane and sends technical acceptance issues to the authorized people who own them.
- The handoff value comes from Tool classification and TQL determination 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 tool classification tql determination and to the decision named in the request. A general audit can list weak records; this pass ranks the gaps by whether they block tool qualification planning in the psac or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is tool list with claimed credit per tool, 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 lead 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.