Compliance matrix
Compliance matrix support for an installation approval
This review checks the compliance matrix for an installation approval so every applicable requirement is covered, each means of compliance is valid, and the evidence cited still supports the claim. A certification engineer runs it before the matrix anchors the data package for submission. It confirms coverage against the certification basis, tests that DO-160G environmental credit matches the installation, and finds entries that cite evidence which has since been superseded. You receive a gap assessment of the matrix, an evidence map from each requirement to current supporting data, and a plan for the rows that no longer hold.
When this review is needed
- The compliance matrix is populated but no one has checked it covers every applicable requirement in the basis.
- DO-160G environmental credit was carried from a prior installation and its applicability to this one is unconfirmed.
- Evidence cited in the matrix was revised after the row was written and the citation may no longer hold.
- A reviewer will use the matrix as the map into the data package and any broken row stops the review.
The problem
A compliance matrix is built row by row over the life of a program, and the evidence underneath each row keeps moving. A requirement gets a means of compliance and a citation, then the referenced report is revised, an environmental category is reassessed, or the installation changes, and the row is never revisited. By submission the matrix can look complete while individual rows point at evidence that no longer says what the row claims, and the basis may have applicable paragraphs the matrix never picked up at all.
What gets reviewed
- Coverage of every applicable requirement in the certification basis
- Means of compliance appropriate to each requirement and installation
- DO-160G environmental credit matched to the actual installation environment
- Cited evidence confirmed as current rather than superseded by a later revision
- Requirement, means, and evidence aligned within each matrix row
- Matrix coverage reconciled against the certification basis for the installation
Scope this review
Tell us the asset, the event, and the evidence in scope, and we will outline a focused first engagement.
Identify what is missing against the means of compliance.
What gets validated
- Every applicable basis paragraph appears in the matrix with a means of compliance
- The means of compliance chosen fits the requirement and the installation type
- DO-160G categories credited match the environment the installation actually sees
- Each cited document is the current revision and still supports the row's claim
- No matrix row cites evidence that a later change made inapplicable
Evidence normally required
- The current compliance matrix for the installation
- The certification basis and the list of applicable requirements
- The DO-160G qualification evidence and environmental categories
- The evidence documents each matrix row cites
- The installation description and its effectivity
Common discrepancies
- An applicable basis paragraph with no corresponding row in the matrix
- A DO-160G category credited from a prior installation with a different environment
- A citation to a report revision that a later change superseded
- A means of compliance that does not actually fit the requirement it is assigned to
What is at stake
A matrix with a coverage hole or a stale citation is where a reviewer starts, because the matrix is the map into everything else. A missing basis paragraph means an uncovered requirement surfaces late, and a citation to superseded evidence forces the program to reconstruct which revision actually supports the claim. Either one stalls the review at the document that was supposed to make it fast.
How the work runs
Check coverage against the basis
Confirm every applicable basis paragraph has a row and a means of compliance in the matrix.
Test the means
Confirm the means of compliance on each row fits the requirement and the installation.
Verify evidence currency
Check each cited document is the current revision and still supports the row's claim.
Plan the closure
Sequence the fixes for uncovered requirements and stale citations before submission.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of matrix coverage and evidence currency
- An evidence map from each requirement to the current data that supports it
- A closure plan for the rows that lack coverage or cite stale evidence
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers confirming the matrix a reviewer navigates by holds up
- Avionics engineering leads reconciling DO-160G credit against the installation
- Compliance managers tracking which matrix rows still need coverage or current evidence
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The matrix is the entry point a reviewer uses to reach every other document, so this review confirms it is complete and current before submission. It reads against the certification basis to test coverage and into the qualification and analysis evidence to test each citation, and its gap list drives the corrections that keep the review from stalling at the map itself.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA can adopt different certification bases for the same installation, so a matrix built for one authority may leave a requirement uncovered for the other. The review notes where basis differences change the applicable requirements so a single matrix can be extended to both findings.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the matrix covers the basis and cites current, applicable evidence. It does not accept a means of compliance, find compliance on the authority's behalf, or make any airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Producing the qualification or analysis evidence the matrix cites
- Accepting a means of compliance on the authority's behalf
- Any airworthiness determination on the installation
Specific to this review
- The matrix is checked against the basis first, because a missing applicable paragraph is a coverage hole no amount of good evidence on the listed rows will fix.
- DO-160G credit carried from a prior installation is a frequent trap: the categories were right for a different environment and may not bound this one.
- Evidence currency decays quietly, because a report can be revised long after the matrix row citing it was written, and nothing forces the row to be revisited.
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. STC application process, certification basis, and continued airworthiness obligations of an STC holder.
RTCA. Environmental qualification test categories and procedures referenced by TSO and equipment qualification.
Federal Aviation Administration. FAA type certification process, certification basis establishment, and compliance findings.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
The matrix is fully populated. What could be missing?
A populated matrix can still miss an applicable basis paragraph entirely, and its rows can cite evidence that was later revised. The review tests coverage against the basis and currency of each citation, which is what turns a complete-looking matrix into one that actually holds under review.
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.