PMA article data
Accomplishment summary support for a PMA article approval
Accomplishment-summary support checks that the summary at the top of a PMA article's assurance data actually claims only what the lifecycle evidence supports. It runs before formal review, for a supplier whose DO-178C or DO-254 summary has to survive a reviewer sampling the objectives it says were met. The work reads objective coverage, open problem reports, and the references back into the lifecycle data, and finds where the summary asserts an objective satisfied without enough underneath it. You receive a gap assessment of the summary, an evidence map from each claimed objective to its lifecycle data, and a closure plan for the claims the evidence does not yet reach.
When this review is needed
- A DO-178C or DO-254 summary claims objectives met at a design assurance level the underlying data does not fully support.
- Open problem reports are not reflected in a summary that reads as if everything is resolved.
- The summary's references into the lifecycle data point at the wrong revision or a missing artifact.
- The package is heading into formal review and the applicant wants the summary defensible before a reviewer samples it.
The problem
The accomplishment summary is the document a reviewer reads first and trusts least, because it is where an applicant is tempted to state that the objectives are met before all the evidence is in. Objectives get marked satisfied on the strength of a plan rather than a completed activity, open problem reports get summarized away, and the references back into the lifecycle data go stale as the artifacts they point to are revised. A reviewer who samples one weak claim reads the rest with suspicion.
What gets reviewed
- Objective coverage checked so each objective the summary claims is backed by lifecycle data
- Design assurance level confirmed so the objectives claimed match the level being asserted
- Open problem reports reflected honestly in the summary rather than resolved on paper
- References into the lifecycle data verified to point at the correct, current artifacts
- Anomalies and deviations from the plans stated rather than omitted
- The summary reconciled to the underlying DO-178C and DO-254 evidence sets
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 objective the summary claims satisfied traces to completed lifecycle evidence, not a plan
- The objectives claimed match the design assurance level the summary asserts
- Open problem reports appear in the summary with their actual status
- Every reference into the lifecycle data resolves to the correct, current artifact
- Deviations from the software and hardware plans are stated rather than left out
Evidence normally required
Common discrepancies
- An objective claimed satisfied on the strength of a plan rather than completed evidence
- An open problem report not reflected in a summary that reads as fully resolved
- A reference into the lifecycle data pointing at a superseded artifact
- A deviation from the software or hardware plan omitted from the summary
What is at stake
A summary that overstates coverage sets up the applicant to fail exactly the sampling a reviewer does to test it, and one objective claimed without evidence casts doubt on every other claim in the document. If open problem reports were summarized away, the reviewer discovers unresolved issues the summary said were closed, which reopens the assurance argument and pushes verification that was reported complete back into work.
How the work runs
Read the claims
Take the summary as a set of objective claims to be tested against the lifecycle data.
Sample the evidence
Trace claimed objectives into the DO-178C or DO-254 data the way a reviewer would.
Check the open items
Confirm open problem reports and plan deviations are stated with their real status.
Reconcile and plan
List the claims the evidence does not reach and order the work to close them.
What the buyer receives
- A gap assessment of the summary listing each claim the evidence does not support
- An evidence map tying every claimed objective to its lifecycle artifact
- A closure plan for the objectives and problem reports the summary has to catch up to
Who uses the output
- Certification leads confirming the summary will survive a reviewer's sampling
- Engineering owners deciding which objectives still need evidence before the claim stands
- Quality leads verifying open problem reports are stated honestly in the summary
How the work fits into the transaction or program
The accomplishment summary is the front door to the assurance evidence, so its credibility shapes how deeply a reviewer digs into everything behind it. Reconciling it before formal review means the applicant is not caught overstating coverage under sampling, and it closes the loop with the finding register, since a problem report open in one place and resolved in the other is the contradiction a reviewer hunts for.
Start with a single asset
Reduce finding cycles by checking the package first.
Jurisdiction-specific considerations
The summary is prepared to the DO-178C and DO-254 objective structure the FAA accepts for a PMA article, and its claims have to align with the design assurance level in the certification basis. Where the same assurance data supports approval by another authority, the review notes where objective interpretation differs so a summary accepted for one is not found short for the other.
Regulatory limits
The review confirms the summary claims only what the lifecycle evidence supports. It does not complete a lifecycle objective, accept the summary on the authority's behalf, or make an airworthiness determination about the article.
What this review does not cover
Specific to this review
- The summary is sampled, not read line by line, so a single overstated objective is enough to make a reviewer distrust the whole document.
- Objectives claimed on the strength of a plan rather than completed evidence are the most common overstatement, because the plan reads like accomplishment.
- An open problem report summarized away is the finding most likely to reopen the assurance argument, since the reviewer meets the unresolved issue the summary denied.
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.
RTCA. Objectives and lifecycle data for airborne software assurance, by design assurance level (DAL A-E).
RTCA. Design assurance objectives and lifecycle data for airborne electronic hardware (FPGA/ASIC/PLD).
Frequently asked questions
Why not claim the objectives now and finish the evidence later?
A reviewer samples the summary against the lifecycle data, so a claim without completed evidence is what the sampling is designed to catch. An objective stated as met on the strength of a plan reads as accomplishment until the reviewer asks for the artifact and finds it is not there yet.
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.