Means of compliance
Means-of-compliance mapping for each requirement
Means-of-compliance mapping decides how each requirement in a certification basis will be shown to be met. It is used by suppliers and modifiers translating a fixed basis into a defensible compliance approach. For each requirement it assigns a method, by test, analysis, inspection, or demonstration, and names the evidence that method has to produce. You receive a requirement-by-requirement map of methods and planned evidence, with the requirements whose chosen method will not actually substantiate the claim flagged.
When this review is needed
- A basis is fixed and each requirement now needs a method assigned before substantiation starts.
- A requirement could be met by more than one method and the program has to choose deliberately.
- A planned method is expensive or slow and the team wants the choice validated before it commits.
- An authority has signaled it expects a particular method and the plan has to reflect that.
The problem
A means of compliance is chosen requirement by requirement, and the easy choice is rarely the defensible one. Analysis gets assigned where the authority will expect a test, a single demonstration gets stretched to cover requirements it cannot, and a method is picked for the evidence the team already has rather than the evidence the requirement needs. The mismatch is silent until the substantiation comes in and the method turns out not to support the claim.
What gets reviewed
- The method assigned to each requirement: test, analysis, inspection, or demonstration
- Whether the chosen method can actually substantiate the requirement as written
- The evidence each method has to produce and where it will come from
- Requirements where the authority is likely to expect a specific method
- Combined methods where analysis is supported by test or correlated to it
- Traceability from each requirement to its assigned method and planned evidence
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 in the basis has a means of compliance assigned
- The assigned method can substantiate the requirement as written, not merely relate to it
- Analysis-only choices are defensible where a test would normally be expected
- A single demonstration is not stretched across requirements it cannot cover
- Each method names the evidence it has to produce for the claim to hold
- The map traces requirement to method to planned evidence without gaps
Evidence normally required
- The fixed certification basis and the requirements derived from it
- Any draft means-of-compliance plan already in progress
- The evidence and test capability the program can draw on
- Prior authority expectations on method where they are known
- The standards that constrain the method for particular requirements
Common discrepancies
- Analysis assigned where the authority will expect a test
- A demonstration stretched to cover requirements it cannot substantiate
- A method chosen for the evidence on hand rather than the evidence the requirement needs
- Requirements with no means of compliance assigned at all
- Methods named without the evidence they must produce being specified
What is at stake
A method that does not substantiate the requirement produces evidence that fails on review, and the requirement has to be redone by the method it needed from the start. The wasted test or analysis is sunk cost, the schedule absorbs the redo, and the program discovers late that its compliance approach was the problem.
How the work runs
Take the basis as input
Start from the fixed certification basis and the requirements it produces.
Assign a method
Map each requirement to test, analysis, inspection, or demonstration with its rationale.
Test the choice
Check that each method can substantiate the requirement and meets likely authority expectations.
Plan the evidence
Name the evidence each method must produce and deliver the means-of-compliance plan.
What the buyer receives
- A requirement-by-requirement map of assigned methods and the evidence each must produce
- A list of requirements whose chosen method will not substantiate the claim
- Notes on requirements where a specific method is likely to be expected
- A defensible means-of-compliance plan ready to drive the substantiation work
Who uses the output
- Certification leads committing the compliance approach
- Engineering teams planning the tests and analyses the methods require
- Program management scheduling substantiation against the chosen methods
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The mapping turns a fixed basis into a plan the substantiation work executes. It follows certification-basis mapping and feeds the compliance matrix, so the methods are settled before any test or analysis is paid for.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Regulatory limits
Endeavor Elements proposes and documents a means of compliance for the applicant. The certifying authority accepts the methods and makes the compliance findings. The mapping supports the applicant's plan rather than determining compliance.
What this review does not cover
- Accepting the means of compliance on the authority's behalf
- Making compliance findings or determining acceptability
- Performing the tests, analyses, or inspections themselves
Specific to this review
- A means of compliance is the method, not the evidence: test, analysis, inspection, and demonstration each produce different artifacts, and assigning the wrong method commits the program to producing the wrong artifact.
- Authorities often expect test where a program would prefer analysis, particularly for failure conditions and environmental effects, so an analysis-only choice has to be defensible before it is planned.
- Choosing the method before substantiation begins is what keeps test and analysis spend from being wasted, because the method, not the budget, should decide what evidence gets produced.
Sources
U.S. Government (eCFR). Type certificates, STCs (Subpart E), TSO authorizations (Subpart O), PMA (Subpart K), and export airworthiness approvals (Subpart L).
SAE International. Development assurance process at aircraft and system level, including requirements capture and validation.
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.
Frequently asked questions
Is the means of compliance the same as the evidence?
No. The means of compliance is the method used to show a requirement is met, such as test or analysis. The evidence is what that method produces. Assigning the method comes first, because it decides which evidence the program has to generate.
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.
Walk through your situation with an engineer who has done this work.