Where your program stands today

• Tell me briefly which program phase your project is in and the target certification milestone. Options: Requirements definition, Software development, Integration and qualification, Certification submission, Post-certification support, Unsure
• When does your program plan to submit evidence to the regulator? Options: Within 4 weeks, 4 to 12 weeks, 3 to 6 months, 6 to 12 months, Longer than 12 months, No fixed date
• Which design assurance levels are in scope for the next certification effort? Options: DAL A, DAL B, DAL C, DAL D, Mixed levels across modules
• Tell me about the primary flight codebase you are qualifying, in terms of approximate lines of code and primary language(s).
• Which verification artifacts currently exist for the highest DAL components? Options: Unit test reports with traces, Integration and system test plans, Structural coverage reports (MC/DC, decision, statement), Requirements traceability matrix, Tool qualification kit or plan, No complete artifacts yet, Other
• If certification evidence for your highest DAL items is not produced within your target window, would the program miss a regulatory milestone or a delivery date? Options: Yes, miss regulatory milestone and delivery, Delay by months but still deliverable, Minor schedule impact, No impact expected, Unsure

When timelines bend, where work piles up

• If there is one single certification gate that consistently threatens your schedule, which one is it and why?
• Walk me through the last time verification evidence caused a schedule slip, what failed first and how did the team respond?
• Which verification activity typically consumes the most calendar time on your projects? Options: Unit test generation and execution, Collecting MC/DC on target hardware, Preparing tool qualification documentation, DER coordination and comments resolution, System level regression testing, Other
• How long does it typically take to assemble a complete tool qualification kit for a new verification tool in your environment? Options: Less than 2 weeks, 2 to 4 weeks, 1 to 2 months, 2 to 4 months, More than 4 months, Not applicable
• Who must approve tool qualification artifacts internally before they are submitted for DER or regulator review? Options: Certification manager, Program manager, Head of engineering, Quality assurance, Cross-functional review board, Other
• Which single failure in your current verification path would force you to stop accepting additional development work until it is resolved? Options: Missing MC/DC evidence for DAL A modules, Tool qualification rejected by DER, Traceability gaps from requirements to tests, Target hardware test access blocked, No reliable regression on target, Other

Evidence gaps regulators typically force you to rework

• Which specific evidence item has the regulator asked you to rework most often in recent submissions?
• In your last audit or certification review, which artifact received the most nonconformances? Options: Requirements traceability matrix, Structural coverage report, Test procedures and results, Tool qualification plan, Software tool operating requirements, Other
• How mature are your structural coverage practices for DAL A components today? Options: Automated MC/DC on target hardware, regularly produced, Automated on host, partial target collection, Mostly manual and ad hoc, In development but not mature, Not started
• Walk me through how your team currently collects and archives coverage data from target hardware, including who owns the data.
• How many full time equivalent engineers do you allocate to verification and certification activities on this program? Options: 0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 20, More than 20
• If a regulator asked for a re-run of MC/DC on target hardware now, how quickly could you produce repeatable, credentialed evidence? Options: Less than 2 weeks, 2 to 4 weeks, 1 to 3 months, More than 3 months, Not possible today

Who owns certification when a review flags blockers

• If a DER or certification office raises a blocking comment tomorrow, who in your organization directs the remediation and signs off? Options: Program manager, Certification manager, Chief engineer, Quality assurance, Cross-functional team, Other
• Which stakeholders are routinely involved in approving test benches and target hardware for qualification? Options: Systems engineering, Hardware engineering, Test lab or test engineering, Procurement, External lab partners, Quality
• How often do your engineers coordinate directly with DERs, versus routing communications through your certification lead? Options: Engineers mostly coordinate directly, Certification lead coordinates, Mixed approach, Rarely engage DERs directly, Unsure
• Walk me through your escalation path for acceptance test failures that threaten a certification milestone, including timing expectations.
• Is there a named individual or single role that has final authority to pause a release or declare it blocked for certification reasons? Options: Yes, a named role exists, No single authority, shared decision, Decision by program leadership only, Unsure

Alternatives on the table and what would keep them

• Which alternatives are you actively considering instead of partnering with an external certification tool and services provider? Options: Remain with current vendor and consultants, Build internal tool qualification and staffing, Switch to a different commercial vendor, Assemble open source plus internal consulting, Pause or delay certification, Other
• Which of the following best describes the current ownership model for your verification toolchain? Options: Internally developed and owned, Licensed commercial tool with vendor support, Open source tools maintained internally, Multiple vendor toolchain, No standard toolchain today
• To stay with your current approach, what specific performance or outcome must be delivered over the next three months?
• Has anyone on your team proposed solving tool qualification entirely in-house rather than using an external partner? Options: Yes, and budget has been allocated, Yes, but no budget allocated, No formal proposal, Unsure
• What single factor would make you switch from your incumbent option to a new vendor before your next certification milestone?

Can your program support a rapid qualification sprint?

• If we committed to a four-week qualification sprint, which infrastructure elements or approvals would block that timeline today?
• Which systems must integrate with a verification tool to collect coverage and test traces in your environment? Options: Continuous integration server, Source control, Target hardware test harness, Requirements management system, Build server, Flight test data capture systems, Other
• Are APIs or automated data export available from those systems today to enable automated evidence collection? Options: Yes for all critical systems, Yes for some systems, No APIs available, Unsure
• How many engineers with tool qualification or DO-178C evidence experience can you dedicate to the engagement during the first 8 weeks? Options: 0, 1 to 2, 3 to 5, 6 to 10, More than 10
• Which regulatory approvals, legal reviews, or export control checks must be completed before on-site consultants can work with your artifacts or target hardware? Options: DER signoff required, Program legal review, Export control approval, Quality system approval, No special approvals, Other
• Do you have a secured staging environment and a named owner where target hardware qualification runs can be executed? Options: No secured environment, Yes, with named owner, Yes, but no named owner, Unsure
• Is there any contract clause, export restriction, or lab access limitation that would prevent consultants from working on-site within your facilities within the next month? Options: Yes, prevents on-site access, Yes, access possible but approvals take more than 4 weeks, No such restrictions, Unsure

What will make this engagement a clear success

• If the pilot proves the expected reduction in regulator comments, what internal sign-off will unlock purchase or expanded scope?
• Which measurable acceptance criteria must be met before you will consider the engagement successful? Options: DER acceptance of tool qualification artifacts, Complete MC/DC evidence for all DAL A modules, Reduction in regulator rework by 50%, Delivery of a qualification kit within 6 weeks, Clear traceability from requirements to tests, Custom acceptance criteria (describe in next field)
• How soon after a successful pilot would procurement expect to finalize licensing terms and sign work orders? Options: Immediately, Within 2 weeks, 2 to 6 weeks, More than 6 weeks, Unsure
• Who needs to sign the statement of work or purchase to move from pilot to full implementation? Options: Program manager, Procurement, Legal, Head of engineering, Certification manager, Multiple signatories
• Which KPI will your executive team use to evaluate program impact from this engagement? Options: On-time certification milestone delivery, Days saved in qualification activities, Reduction in DER comments, FTEs freed from verification tasks, Cost savings, Other
• If the pilot meets the acceptance criteria, do you have the authority and budget to proceed to full implementation within your planned timeline? Options: Yes, authority and budget allocated, Yes, but requires final approval, No, budget not available, Unsure

Concrete next moves and earliest kickoff

• If we align on a concrete scope today, what is the earliest date you could commit to a kickoff with named owners? Options: Within 2 weeks, 2 to 4 weeks, 1 to 2 months, 2 to 3 months, More than 3 months, Unsure
• Who should be on the kickoff call to represent engineering, certification, and procurement? Options: Certification manager, Lead software engineer, Program manager, Procurement lead, DER representative, Quality lead, Other
• Which documents or artifacts would you want us to review in advance to prepare a focused pilot plan? Options: DO-178C plan or certification plan, Requirements traceability matrix, Existing tool qualification kits, Recent MC/DC reports, Target hardware integration guide, Other
• How do you prefer progress to be reported during the engagement? Options: Weekly written status, Weekly demo and walkthrough, Biweekly executive summary, Live access to project workspace, Other
• If the pilot uncovers an incompatible toolchain that cannot be qualified, what fallback would your team pursue? Options: Engage a different vendor, Delay certification and remediate internally, Develop internal fixes, Pause the program, Other

• decision_readiness
• current_state
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• gaps
• stakeholders
• decision_readiness
• gaps
• current_state
• desired_state
• success_criteria
• stakeholders
• stakeholders
• current_state
• gaps
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness
• decision_readiness

• Install and Configure Verification Toolchain
• Deploy Requirements Management and Traceability
• Instrument Source Code for Structural Coverage
• Run Structural Coverage Analysis (MC/DC, decision, statement)
• Execute Automated Test Runs with Requirement Traceability
• Generate Test Execution and Coverage Reports
• Deliver Tool Qualification Kit (Tool Operational Requirements and Tool Qualification Plan)
• Provide Tool Qualification Evidence for Authority Review
• Deliver Certification Artifact Package for DO-178C Approval
• Migrate Requirements and Traceability from Prior Provider
• Deliver Code Review and Static Analysis Reports with Traces
• On-site DER Liaison During Certification Activities
• Train Engineering Team on Tool Use and Certification Workflows

Install and Configure Verification Toolchain

• Do you have an approved host build environment (OS, compiler version) for installing the verification toolchain? Options: Yes, No, Partially / need help identifying
• Which CI system will you use (e.g., Jenkins, GitLab CI, other) to run automated verification jobs for flight software builds? Options: Jenkins, GitLab CI, Azure DevOps, Other
• How many target build configurations (object code variants or optimization levels) must you validate during installation? Options: 1, 2-3, 4-6, More than 6
• Who on your team will provide access to build artifacts, signed binaries, and RTOS images for tool configuration?
• Specify any air-gapped or secured network constraints in your environment that affect tool installation and licensing (e.g., no internet, proxy, signed certificates).

Deploy Requirements Management and Traceability

• When do you need requirements traceability integrated with the verification toolchain to support the qualification schedule? Options: Immediately (within 2 weeks), Within 1 month, Within 2-3 months, Other timeline
• Are your requirements stored in a requirements management database with stable unique IDs that map to DO-178C objectives? Options: Yes, No, Partially / mixed sources
• Identify which requirement types in your program (system, software, derived) need automated trace links to unit and integration tests. Options: System-level, Software-level, Derived requirements, Safety requirements
• Provide the current count of active software requirements you have and the expected growth during qualification. Options: Less than 500, 500-2,000, 2,000-10,000, More than 10,000
• Do you require bidirectional traceability reports that show trace from requirement ID to test case and to coverage evidence? Options: Yes, No, Only one-way traces required

Instrument Source Code for Structural Coverage

• List the target programming languages and compiler toolchain used for your flight code that must be instrumented for coverage.
• Which files or subsystems in your project (by component name or directory) should you exclude from instrumentation per DO-178C rationale? Options: No exclusions, Platform BSP only, Generated code only, Custom list (provide names)
• How many source modules do you estimate will require instrumentation and what is the approximate LOC per module in your system? Options: < 10 modules, 10-50 modules, 51-200 modules, > 200 modules
• Who on your team is responsible for committing instrumentation changes to source control and approving the instrumented build?
• Specify whether you require instrumentation at source or object level and any constraints from your RTOS or BSP for your target hardware. Options: Source-level instrumentation, Object-level instrumentation, Mixed / tool-dependent

Run Structural Coverage Analysis (MC/DC, decision, statement)

• Where will you run coverage analysis—on host-instrumented simulations, processor-in-the-loop (PIL), or hardware-in-the-loop (HIL) benches? Options: Host-instrumented simulation, SIL/MIL, PIL, HIL
• Is MC/DC required for the highest-criticality code elements in your system identified for DO-178C Design Assurance Level A? Options: Yes, No, Partial set - specify
• Quantify the target coverage thresholds you require for statement, decision, and MC/DC for each DAL level in your program. Options: Provide numeric targets (open entry)
• Provide the test harness or scripts you will use to collect coverage data and any transformation steps before report generation.
• Have you generated existing baseline coverage reports to compare against after re-instrumentation? Options: Yes - attach baseline, No, Partial / samples available

Execute Automated Test Runs with Requirement Traceability

• Will your automated test runs be executed in MIL (model-in-the-loop), SIL (software-in-the-loop), PIL, or HIL environments? Options: MIL/SIL, PIL, HIL, Combination of the above
• Name the test frameworks your team currently uses for unit and integration tests that will need traceability links.
• Estimate the number of nightly or per-build test runs you expect the CI to retain for certification evidence. Options: Keep last 5 runs, Keep last 20 runs, Keep all runs for 90 days, Custom retention
• Identify who on your team will own test case maintenance and linking test cases to requirement IDs during the engagement.
• Are there pass/fail criteria for your automated tests tied to requirement verification that must be enforced automatically? Options: Yes - list thresholds, No, Some tests only

Generate Test Execution and Coverage Reports

• Confirm the report formats accepted by your certification team and DERs (PDF, XML with DO-330 mapping, HTML). Options: PDF, XML, HTML, Other
• State the metadata fields you require (requirement ID, test ID, build ID, date, bench) that must appear on each report. Options: Requirement ID, Test ID, Build ID, Bench ID, Timestamp, Other
• In what archival format will you accept evidence—signed PDFs, cryptographic checksums, or artifact hashes for each report? Options: Signed PDF, Checksum (SHA-256), Artifact hash + manifest, Other
• Name the role in your organization that must approve the coverage reports prior to inclusion in the certification package.
• Confirm whether you want automated thresholds (for example 100% statement coverage in DAL A modules) to block promotion to the next stage. Options: Yes, block on threshold failures, No, allow manual override, Block only for DAL A modules

Deliver Tool Qualification Kit (Tool Operational Requirements and Tool Qualification Plan)

• Attach the baseline Tool Operational Requirements (TOR) and Tool Qualification Plan (TQP) versions you expect in your qualification kit.
• List any authority precedents you want referenced in the TQP (FAA memo numbers, EASA acceptance letters, prior DER agreements).
• Quantify the number of tool configuration variants and supported host/target combinations that you require the TQP to cover. Options: 1, 2-3, 4-6, More than 6
• Declare the owner in your organization who will sign off on the TOR and TQP deliverables during the qualification kit handover.
• What acceptance evidence (DER approval letter, authority RAI closure, signed TQP) will confirm that your tool qualification kit is accepted by the certification authority? Options: DER approval letter, Authority acknowledgment / RAI closed, Signed TQP and TOR, Combination - specify

Provide Tool Qualification Evidence for Authority Review

• Enumerate the artifacts (traceable test logs, bit-for-bit test vectors, anomaly reports) you require in the evidence package.
• Indicate the number of independent execution traces and reproducible test vectors per tool function you believe are needed for authority review. Options: 1-2 traces, 3-5 traces, More than 5 traces
• Share the role and contact method you have for your designated DER contact who will review the qualification evidence and respond to requests for information.
• When do you expect the authority review to be completed and what is your submission milestone? Options: Within 2 weeks of submission, Within 1 month, Within 2-3 months, Custom milestone
• Assign the role in your organization that will coordinate responses to authority RAIs during review.

Deliver Certification Artifact Package for DO-178C Approval

• Enumerate the certification artifacts you require in the final package (verification reports, TQP, DER letters, test logs).
• Indicate whether you expect final verification reports to include traceability matrices that map every requirement ID to test cases and coverage files. Options: Yes - full matrix, No - summary only, Partial - high-criticality only
• Name the approver role and the authorized submitter role in your organization for the certification package.
• Should your deliverable package include cryptographic signing and an evidence manifest for long-term traceability? Options: Yes - required, Optional, No
• Are there any format constraints or submission portals used by your authority (file size limits, accepted archive formats, secure upload endpoint)? Options: Yes - specify, No, Unknown

Migrate Requirements and Traceability from Prior Provider

• State the number of requirement records you need migrated and the export format you will supply. Options: Less than 1,000, 1,000-10,000, 10,000-100,000, More than 100,000
• Will historical trace links to test cases and coverage reports need to be preserved and validated during your migration? Options: Yes - full preservation, Partial preservation, No
• What percentage of requirement-to-test trace links must be preserved for your migration to be considered complete (for example, 98%)? Options: 95%, 98%, 100%, Custom % - specify
• Designate the role in your organization responsible for reconciling mismatches and the role with final sign-off on migrated traces.
• Do you require validation checks post-migration against a sample of coverage artifacts and test logs? Options: Yes - sample validation required, No, Only on request

Deliver Code Review and Static Analysis Reports with Traces

• Detail the static analysis tools or rule sets (MISRA, CERT, custom) you want applied during code review and included in the reports. Options: MISRA C, CERT C/C++, Custom rule set, No static analysis required
• Describe how you want findings classified for DO-178C objectives (severity, DAL impact, remediation owner) in the static analysis reports.
• Please indicate whether you want generated code versus hand-written code to follow different acceptance criteria in your code review. Options: Yes - different criteria, No - same criteria, Partial - specify
• Assign the owner in your organization for remediation tracking and the approver who will close static-analysis-related certification findings prior to submission.
• Do you require a defects-to-requirements trace for each static-analysis finding to show closure against DO-178C objectives? Options: Yes, No, Only for DAL A/B findings

On-site DER Liaison During Certification Activities

• Share the dates or milestones when you require the DER liaison to be on-site and for which certification milestones (qualification testing, stage-of-involvement audits, submission readiness).
• Should you require the liaison to participate in DER meetings with the certification authority and prepare meeting minutes? Options: Yes - participate and document, Participate only, No
• Clarify who in your organization will cover logistics for the on-site liaison (visitor access, bench access, NDAs, local facilities).
• Declare any export control, ITAR, or security clearances you require for the liaison to review restricted artifacts. Options: Company NDA only, ITAR clearance, Security clearance required, No special clearance
• Do you require the liaison to have remote access to your lab benches or only on-site access for evidence review? Options: On-site only, Remote access required, Both

• Master Services Agreement (MSA)
• Statement of Work (SOW)
• Software License & Order Form
• Pricing & Payment Schedule
• DER Coordination Agreement
• Start-of-Work Acceptance Criteria
• Export Control & Regulatory Addendum (conditional)

• Go-live Health Check
• First Measurement Review
• 90-day Certification Realization Review
• Quarterly Ongoing Compliance Review
• Annual Certification Outcomes and Regulator Feedback Review

• Maintain an up-to-date tool-qualification kit that reflects current configurations and verification artifacts.
• Restate Solution Scope acceptance-related targets
• Confirm which acceptance-related targets recorded in Solution Scope remain open and quantify the remediation effort required.
• Establish a concrete closure plan for certification non-conformance items with target resolution windows.
• Ensure DER approvals and regulator feedback items are tracked with clear follow-up actions.
• Publish the 90-day outcomes summary documenting verification pass rates and outstanding remediation items.
• Create a time-boxed remediation backlog for all open certification non-conformance items with resolution windows.
• Record DER approval statuses and any regulator conditions into the shared evidence repository.
• Current open regulator feedback and enhancements
• Keep the open regulator feedback count and enhancement request count within the thresholds recorded in Solution Scope or agree mitigation steps.
• Ensure high-impact tickets are progressing toward closure with clear target dates.
• Reconfirm success criteria and owners
• Update the issue tracker to reflect reprioritized remediation and enhancement items with target completion windows.
• Revise the tool-qualification kit artifacts as required by recent verification outcomes or regulator feedback.
• Close low-impact items with documented rationale and archive associated evidence.
• Year-to-date certification outcome summary
• Verify the count of regulator acceptance events and sustained MC/DC coverage meet the expectations recorded in Solution Scope or document gaps and mitigation plans.
• Agree an annual maintenance plan that schedules qualification kit updates, DER touchpoints, and evidence refresh cycles.
• Capture regulator lessons learned and translate them into at least three specific process improvements for the next year.
• Publish the annual certification outcomes report with a register of regulator feedback and agreed process improvements.
• Create the annual maintenance calendar that includes qualification kit refresh dates and DER engagement windows.
• Convert agreed process improvements into tracked initiatives with target completion windows for the next year.
• Confirm deployment components and integrations are functioning to enable verification activities.
• Produce a prioritized list of early blockers with remediation tickets and target resolution dates.
• Confirm owners for each open item and schedule the first measurement review within the weeks 4-10 window.
• Publish the health check summary and attach remediation ticket list to the shared workspace.
• Create remediation tickets for each blocker and record target resolution dates.
• Schedule the first measurement review within the agreed weeks 4-10 window.
• Present first measurement data
• Determine whether MC/DC coverage for DAL A modules and open regulator feedback count are moving toward Solution Scope targets, or require remediation.
• Agree a corrective action plan with target dates to address the top 3 root causes for metric shortfalls.
• Confirm required updates to the tool qualification kit and DER coordination steps needed to reduce regulator feedback.
• Produce a remediation plan that maps each coverage or feedback gap to specific verification tasks and resolution dates.
• Update the tool qualification inputs and qualification kit artifacts to reflect identified test cases and environment parameters.
• Log all regulator feedback items into the issue tracker with priority and target close dates.
• Sustained coverage and verification health
• Ticket burn-down and resolution trends
• Deployment and integration validation
• Root cause analysis for gaps
• Present verification outcome trends
• Early adoption signals
• Regulator feedback and process improvements
• Regulator feedback and DER approvals update
• Prioritize next quarter work
• Tool qualification and DER coordination status
• Open issues and blockers triage
• Agree corrective actions and timeline
• Annual maintenance and evidence refresh plan
• Tool-qualification kit maintenance
• Document remaining remediation and closure plan
• Close long-running items or convert to maintenance backlog
• Incumbent system wind-down status
• Agree monitoring and escalation path
• Confirm readiness path to next gate
• Short status updates and close low-impact items
• Agree immediate remediation actions