Finding and action-item register
Finding and action-item register support for a major change
This review examines the finding and action-item register for a major change to confirm that items marked closed are actually supported by closure evidence. A certification engineer runs it as the register is being driven toward zero open items before the finding. It checks that each finding has a clear owner, that the evidence a closure claims is linked and sufficient, and that no item was moved to closed on status alone. You receive a gap assessment separating real closures from status-only ones, an evidence map tying each closed item to its proof, and a plan for the items that still need work.
When this review is needed
- The register shows most items closed but no one has checked whether the closures are backed by evidence.
- Findings were assigned early in the program and some owners have since rolled off without handing the items over.
- An action item was closed by a promise to do something rather than proof it was done.
- A reviewer will work through the register and any status-only closure will reopen under questioning.
The problem
A finding register accumulates items faster than it closes them, and the pressure to show progress turns status green before the evidence exists. An item gets marked closed on a plan, a conversation, or an intent, and the link to actual proof is left for later that never comes. Ownership erodes as people rotate off the program, so by submission the register can read fully closed while a portion of it has no evidence a reviewer would accept.
What gets reviewed
- Ownership confirmed for every open and recently closed finding
- Closure evidence linked and sufficient for each item marked closed
- Status-only closures separated from evidence-backed ones
- Action items distinguished from findings and tracked to the right closure standard
- Cross-references from the register into the compliance and safety evidence verified
- Register status mapped against the certification basis and the acceptable means of compliance
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 closed finding links to evidence a reviewer would accept as closing it
- Every open item has a current owner rather than one who has left the program
- An item closed by an intended action is reclassified until the action is evidenced
- The register's cross-references resolve to real documents in the data package
- No finding is closed against a means of compliance that the basis does not support
Evidence normally required
- The current finding and action-item register
- The closure evidence linked to each item marked closed
- The compliance matrix and safety evidence the register references
- The certification basis and acceptable means of compliance for the change
- The owner assignments and their current status on the program
Common discrepancies
- A finding marked closed with a link that points to a plan rather than accomplishment evidence
- An open action item whose owner has rolled off with no handover
- A closure credited against a means of compliance the basis does not actually allow
- A cross-reference into the data package that resolves to nothing
What is at stake
A register that shows closed but cannot prove it collapses the moment a reviewer pulls a thread, because a status-only closure reopens as an open finding under scrutiny. Reconstructing the evidence for an item that was closed months earlier, sometimes by someone no longer on the program, is slow and undermines confidence in every other closure on the list. The finding stalls on exactly the items the register claimed were done.
How the work runs
Confirm ownership
Check every open and recently closed item has a current owner rather than one who has left.
Test each closure
Confirm the evidence a closed item links to is real and sufficient to close it.
Separate status from proof
Reclassify any item closed on intent or status until accomplishment evidence exists.
Plan the closure
Sequence the remaining work so the register is evidence-backed before the finding opens.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment separating evidence-backed closures from status-only ones
- An evidence map tying each genuinely closed item to its supporting proof
- A closure plan for the items that still need evidence or an owner before the finding
Who uses the output
- Certification engineers confirming the register a reviewer will work through holds up
- Program leads reassigning findings whose owners have left the program
- Compliance managers separating real progress from status-only closures
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The register is the spine that ties the whole change together, so this review runs as it is driven to closure and before the finding opens. It pulls on the compliance matrix and the safety and conformity evidence to test each claimed closure, and its plan clears the status-only items that would otherwise reopen the moment a reviewer starts reading.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The FAA and EASA both track findings and action items to closure, but the way each authority records agreement and what it treats as a closed item can differ. The review notes where an item closed to one authority's satisfaction still needs additional articulation for the other so the register carries through both findings.
Regulatory limits
The review tests whether register items are backed by evidence sufficient to close them. It does not close findings on the authority's behalf, accept a means of compliance, or make any airworthiness determination.
What this review does not cover
- Closing findings or action items on an authority's behalf
- Producing the underlying compliance or safety evidence a finding needs
- Any airworthiness determination on the change
Specific to this review
- A status-only closure is worse than an open finding, because it hides work that still has to happen behind a green marker no one questions until a reviewer does.
- Ownership is the quiet failure: items assigned early lose their owner as people rotate off, and an orphaned finding drifts until submission surfaces it.
- One finding closed against a means of compliance the basis does not allow can cast doubt on the whole register, because it shows closures were accepted without checking the 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.
Frequently asked questions
The register shows everything closed. Why review it?
A closed status is a claim, not proof. The review checks that each closure links to evidence a reviewer would accept and that nothing was marked done on intent or a plan. The items that fail that test are precisely the ones that reopen when the authority works through the register.
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.