Major change program
Compliance matrix review for a major change program
This review tests the compliance matrix at the center of a major change data package, confirming that every certification-basis requirement has a line, a stated means of compliance, and evidence that still holds. A certification specialist reads each row against the basis and the referenced document, finding the entries where the cited evidence has been superseded or no longer answers the requirement. The output distinguishes rows that are genuinely closed from rows that only appear closed. You receive a gap assessment, a requirement-to-evidence map, and a closure plan before the matrix moves into formal review.
When this review is needed
- A major change touches multiple systems and the matrix has grown faster than anyone has verified it.
- Evidence was revised during the program and no one has confirmed the matrix still cites the current version.
- The certification basis changed mid-program and some rows may answer a superseded requirement.
- The package is close to submission and the matrix is the index the authority will work from first.
The problem
The compliance matrix is the map the authority reads before anything else, so an error in it is an error in the reviewer's first impression. As a major change program runs, evidence gets revised, requirements shift, and rows quietly detach from the documents they point to. A matrix that looked complete at a design review can cite reports that have since been superseded, leaving the claim intact and the support gone.
What gets reviewed
- Every certification-basis requirement confirmed to have a matrix line so nothing is silently omitted
- The stated means of compliance on each row checked as appropriate to the requirement
- Each cited evidence reference resolved to its current revision and read against the claim
- Rows affected by a mid-program basis change identified and rechecked
- Superseded or duplicate evidence citations flagged so no row rests on a withdrawn document
- Coverage of the changed systems mapped so the matrix reflects the actual scope of the change
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
- Each basis requirement in scope appears on the matrix with no requirement left unlisted
- The means of compliance stated per row suits the requirement it answers
- Every evidence citation resolves to a document at its current revision
- The cited document still supports the claim after any revision it went through
- Rows touched by a basis change answer the current requirement, not a superseded one
Evidence normally required
- The draft compliance matrix for the major change
- The certification basis, including any mid-program changes to it
- The evidence documents the matrix rows cite, at current revision
- The list of systems and functions the change affects
- Prior review comments on the matrix, if any
Common discrepancies
- A row citing a report revision that has since been superseded
- A basis requirement in scope with no corresponding matrix line
- A means of compliance stated for a row that the requirement does not actually allow
- A claim left unchanged after the evidence behind it was revised to say something narrower
What is at stake
A reviewer who finds one broken citation stops trusting the matrix and starts checking every row, which turns a fast index-led review into a slow forensic one. Rows whose evidence no longer supports the claim become findings, and each finding pulls the program back into work it thought was finished.
How the work runs
Reconcile against the basis
Confirm every certification-basis requirement in scope has a matrix line and flag any that do not.
Resolve every citation
Open each cited evidence reference at current revision and read it against the row's claim.
Recheck the changed rows
Identify rows affected by evidence or basis revisions and confirm they still hold.
Close the gaps
List the missing rows and stale citations and sequence the corrections before submission.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing rows whose evidence no longer supports the claim
- A requirement-to-evidence map covering every basis item in scope
- A closure plan for the missing rows and the stale citations
Who uses the output
- Certification leadership deciding whether the matrix is submission-ready
- Engineering leadership resolving rows where the evidence and claim diverged
- Compliance managers tracking which basis requirements remain uncovered
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The matrix review runs late in the program, after the evidence exists but before the package is offered, because the matrix is the last thing to stabilize and the first thing the authority reads. Its closure plan drives the final evidence corrections so the index the reviewer opens is one that holds up under a spot check.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the matrix is complete, internally consistent, and backed by current evidence. It does not make any means-of-compliance determination for the authority, approve the change, or find the modified product compliant.
What this review does not cover
- Generating the evidence a missing or stale row needs
- Selecting the means of compliance on the authority's behalf
- Any compliance or airworthiness finding on the change
Specific to this review
- The matrix is read first, so a single broken citation costs more than its own row: it converts an index-led review into a row-by-row audit.
- Evidence revised late in a program is where matrices break, because the claim in the row is rarely revisited when the document behind it changes.
- A mid-program basis change can leave a row answering a requirement that no longer exists in the current basis.
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.
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
Frequently asked questions
The matrix passed its last internal review. Why check it again before submission?
Evidence keeps moving after a design review. Reports get revised, the basis can shift, and rows that were sound then can cite superseded documents now. The pre-submission pass confirms the matrix still holds against the current evidence the authority will actually pull.
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.