Certification evidence
Tool qualification plan scoping evidence review for DO-178C
This review is for avionics suppliers, Engineering teams, OEMs responsible for tool qualification plan scoping. It is triggered by tool qualification planning. EE checks list of tools requiring qualification, their determined TQL, tool operational requirements, plus the governing plan or application, against DO-178C. Discrepancies include missing source records, mismatched configuration, unsupported assumptions, or tool omitted from scope. Output includes Tool qualification plan scoping exception register, Claim to evidence map, Reviewer question list.
When this review is needed
- The plan names tool qualification plan scoping 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 tool qualification plan scope the right tools, operational requirements, and verification for the determined TQL, because a plan that under-scopes tool operational requirements or omits a tool leaves a hole the authority finds late, especially where tool omitted from scope.
What gets reviewed
- Review list of tools requiring qualification against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Compare their determined TQL against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Trace tool operational requirements against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Challenge tool verification/testing approach against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Reconcile tool-qualification data set planned per DO-330 against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
- Confirm version control tying the plan to the deployed tool. against the configuration, installation, or claim under review.
What gets validated
- Pass check: list of tools requiring qualification must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Configuration check: their determined TQL must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Trace check: tool operational requirements must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Rationale check: tool verification/testing approach must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
- Closure check: tool-qualification data set planned per DO-330 must match the released configuration and the claimed means of compliance.
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- Gap: tool omitted from scope.
- Mismatch: operational requirements too thin to test against.
- Unsupported claim: tQL evidence planned below what the tool use demands.
What is at stake
The cost is rework during authority-facing activity. Teams lose time when operational requirements too thin to test against, 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 Tool Qualification
Confirm the exact event, affected file set, buyer role, and decision standard before any list of tools requiring qualification is treated as sufficient.
Trace Scoping 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 178c Certification
Group exceptions by closure route: document retrieval, data correction, engineering disposition, authority response, or contractual decision.
Package Operational Requirements
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 qualification plan scoping 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.
- tools 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 tool qualification plan scope the right tools, operational requirements, and verification for the determined TQL, because a plan that under-scopes tool operational requirements or omits a tool leaves a hole the authority finds late. The evidence set centers on the list of tools requiring qualification and their determined TQL, the tool operational requirements, the tool verification/testing approach, the tool-qualification data set planned per DO-330, and the version control tying the plan to the. The likely weak points are a tool omitted from scope, operational requirements too thin to test against, and TQL evidence planned below what the tool use demands; Pairs with the do-330 TQL-determination standard page: that sets TQL, this reviews the plan built from it. The output gives the software lead a cleanup register for Tool qualification plan scoping before tool qualification planning.
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: tool omitted from scope changes the strength of the certification argument.
- The scope uses the Tool Qualification Plan Scoping question as the control point, so the review stays tied to Tool qualification planning and the buyer decision behind it.
- The evidence starts with List of tools requiring qualification and follows Review Evidence 178c Certification 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 Scope Operational Requirements Tql 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 qualification plan scoping exception register; it gives the next reviewer a precise map instead of another broad request for a better file.
Sources
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Frequently asked questions
What makes this evidence review different from a general file audit?
The scope is tied to tool qualification plan scoping 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 or can be closed later without changing the decision.
What evidence has to be available before this work starts?
The starting point is list of tools requiring qualification, 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.