Major change program
Means-of-compliance map review for a major change program
This review examines the means-of-compliance map for a major change, testing the logic that links each requirement to how compliance will be shown and to the evidence that will show it. A certification specialist walks each requirement from its assigned means to the document that will carry the proof, finding the requirements that have a means named but no evidence path behind it. The output separates requirements with a complete route from those where the means is stated on paper only. You receive a gap assessment, a requirement-to-means-to-evidence map, and a closure plan before the map anchors the package.
When this review is needed
- The plan assigned a means to each requirement and no one has confirmed each means leads to a real evidence path.
- A means chosen early, such as analysis, may no longer suit a requirement the design has since changed.
- The package is being assembled and the map is what turns requirements into the evidence that will be produced.
- Requirements were added or revised and the map has to show how each new one will be complied with.
The problem
Assigning a means of compliance is quick; building the evidence path behind it is the actual work, and the two often drift apart. A requirement can carry a clean means in the map, say test or analysis, while nothing downstream is scoped to produce that test or that analysis. The map reads as a complete plan for compliance, but some of its rows are means without a route, and those are invisible until someone tries to pull the evidence.
What gets reviewed
- Each requirement traced from its assigned means to the specific evidence that will demonstrate it
- The suitability of the chosen means checked against the requirement and the current design
- Requirements with a named means but no downstream evidence path identified
- Test, analysis, inspection, and review assignments confirmed to have owners and a route
- Added or revised requirements confirmed to be mapped rather than left off
- Means that no longer fit after a design change flagged for reassignment
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 requirement with an assigned means has a defined document that will carry the evidence
- The chosen means suits the requirement it is assigned to and the design as it now stands
- No requirement carries a means whose evidence path is unscoped or unowned
- Added and revised requirements each appear in the map with a means and a route
- Means invalidated by a design change are marked for reassignment, not left stale
Evidence normally required
- The draft means-of-compliance map for the change
- The requirement set the change introduces or revises
- The certification plan and its assigned means
- The planned test, analysis, and inspection scope
- Design data current enough to judge whether each means still fits
Common discrepancies
- A requirement assigned a test that no planned test article or procedure covers
- An analysis named as the means with no analysis scoped to produce it
- A means chosen before a design change that the current design no longer supports
- A revised requirement absent from the map entirely
What is at stake
A requirement with a means but no evidence path becomes a late scramble to run a test or write an analysis the program never budgeted for, or a finding when the map is submitted with the route still empty. The map that was supposed to organize the evidence instead hides the requirements no one is actually working.
How the work runs
Walk the map
Take each requirement and follow its assigned means to the specific document that will carry the proof.
Test the means
Confirm the chosen means suits the requirement and the current design, flagging any that no longer fit.
Find the empty routes
Identify requirements with a means named but no scoped, owned evidence path behind it.
Close and reassign
Sequence the routing work and reassign the means that the design has invalidated.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment listing requirements whose means has no evidence path
- A requirement-to-means-to-evidence map with the route confirmed per row
- A closure plan for the unrouted means and the reassignments
Who uses the output
- Certification leadership confirming the compliance approach is executable
- Engineering leadership scoping the tests and analyses the map commits to
- Compliance managers tracking requirements whose evidence route is still open
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The map review runs between the certification plan and the evidence work, because the map is where the plan's commitments become the specific tests, analyses, and inspections the program will run. Confirming each means has a route here prevents requirements from reaching submission with a means named and nothing behind it.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the map's requirement-to-evidence logic is complete and the chosen means are viable. It does not accept a means of compliance for the authority, approve the change, or make any compliance finding.
What this review does not cover
- Running the tests or writing the analyses a means requires
- Accepting a means of compliance on the authority's behalf
- Any airworthiness or compliance determination on the change
Specific to this review
- Assigning a means takes a keystroke; scoping the evidence path behind it takes a program, which is why the two drift apart.
- A means without a route is invisible in the map because the row looks identical to a fully routed one until someone tries to pull the evidence.
- A design change can quietly invalidate a means chosen earlier, so the map has to be rechecked against the design it now describes.
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
Every requirement in our map already has a means assigned. What is left to check?
An assigned means is a label; the review checks whether each label leads to real, scoped, owned evidence. The rows that look complete but have no test or analysis behind them are exactly what this pass finds before they reach submission.
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.