Program change request
Add a connected health-monitoring LRU to an in-service aircraft to collect vibration, temperature, and usage data for predictive maintenance.
Digital Thread Example
From one aircraft change to complete certification evidence.
A hypothetical connected health-monitoring LRU retrofit shows how a governed intelligence layer can connect stakeholder intent, supplier inputs, software, hardware, tests, substantiation, and authority-facing certification artifacts.
Scenario
A realistic change with messy program data.
An operator wants to retrofit a connected health-monitoring LRU. The aircraft change touches installation design, electrical load, software, firmware, cybersecurity, maintenance procedures, safety assessment, environmental qualification, supplier lifecycle data, and certification evidence.
Certification basis
Part 23 or Part 25 amendment level, special conditions if applicable, project issue papers, STC or type-certification path, means of compliance, and authority expectations.
Stakeholder inputs
Operator dispatch needs, maintenance procedures, pilot interface constraints, cybersecurity expectations, installation constraints, and business objectives.
Supplier data
Equipment datasheets, ICDs, environmental qualification reports, safety inputs, software lifecycle data, SAS, HAS, problem reports, release notes, and conformity records.
Program tools
Jama or DOORS requirements, Jira issues, Git commits, Teamcenter or ENOVIA parts, test procedures, lab data, supplier portals, and controlled document repositories.
Evidence Chain
Requirements to validation to substantiation, without losing the thread.
The central model does not replace Jama, DOORS, Jira, Teamcenter, ENOVIA, Git, test systems, or supplier documents. It indexes approved records, maps relationships, enforces governance, and shows exactly where the program has proof or gaps.
01
Program / certification
Change intent
Change request, business case, affected aircraft configuration, proposed certification path
What aircraft, systems, rules, suppliers, and approval basis are touched by the change?02
Systems engineering
Stakeholder requirements
Operator needs, maintainability goals, pilot workload constraints, continued airworthiness needs
Which stakeholder needs are accepted, deferred, or outside the certified scope?03
Systems / LRU engineering
System requirements and allocation
System requirements, ICDs, architecture, LRU allocation, software and hardware allocation
Where does each requirement live: aircraft, installation, LRU hardware, embedded software, firmware, ground system, or procedure?04
Safety / certification
Safety and compliance model
FHA, PSSA, SSA, DAL allocation, hazards, mitigation links, compliance checklist
What hazards, DALs, objectives, means of compliance, and assurance activities are driven by the change?05
Engineering / suppliers
Implementation baseline
Parts, drawings, wiring, software low-level requirements, firmware design, code, reviews, supplier releases
Which exact design records, supplier deliveries, Jira work items, commits, and configuration items implement the requirement?06
Test / V&V
Verification evidence
Test procedures, dry runs, formal results, anomalies, coverage, DO-160 evidence, code coverage, review records
Which objective evidence proves every requirement and standard objective, and what gaps remain?07
Chief engineer / certification
Validation and substantiation
Operational validation, analysis reports, conformity records, installation substantiation, compliance findings
Does the implemented change satisfy the original aircraft-level intent and support the claimed means of compliance?08
Certification / ODA / DER
Authority package
Compliance summary, trace matrix, test reports, SAS, HAS, PSAC/PHAC, issue-paper responses, ICA updates
Can the program produce a reviewable package with source links, baselines, approvals, and open-item status?Trace Example
One requirement can show its full lineage.
The point is not a pretty matrix. The point is that each row is live enough to answer what changed, who approved it, what evidence exists, what is missing, and what must be included in the certification package.
Record
Example content
Trace state
Stakeholder need
Reduce unscheduled maintenance caused by undetected component degradation.
Accepted in Jama; linked to maintenance and dispatch KPIs.
Aircraft requirement
The installed system shall not introduce unacceptable pilot workload or unsafe misleading indications.
Allocated to installation, HMI, safety, and validation records.
System requirement
The health-monitoring LRU shall collect sensor data and transmit approved datasets without affecting essential aircraft functions.
Linked to ICD, cybersecurity controls, and LRU requirements.
Software requirement
The embedded software shall detect invalid sensor inputs and enter a bounded degraded mode.
Linked to DO-178C low-level requirements, code, tests, and coverage.
Hardware requirement
The LRU hardware shall meet environmental and installation constraints for the target aircraft zone.
Linked to DO-254/DO-160 plans, qualification reports, and conformity records.
Verification result
Formal test confirms degraded-mode behavior, no unintended bus traffic, and expected alert/logging behavior.
Linked to procedure, results, anomaly dispositions, and reviewer approval.
Substantiation
Compliance summary ties the change to safety assessment, installation analysis, environmental qualification, and lifecycle evidence.
Ready for certification-team review with source records attached.
Central Intelligence
The system knows what a SAS, HAS, ICD, test report, and compliance matrix mean.
A useful aerospace intelligence layer needs domain context. It should understand the relationship between supplier accomplishment summaries, lifecycle data, safety records, low-level software and firmware evidence, hardware qualification, configuration baselines, and FAA or ODA review expectations.
Querysource linked
Generate a design compliance summary for the health-monitoring LRU retrofit and list missing evidence before the certification review.
Regulatory basis and means of complianceRequirements, hazards, DALs, and allocationSAS/HAS supplier evidence comparisonVerification status and anomaly dispositionConformity, substantiation, and open itemsCertification artifact index and approval state
Outputs
Draft artifacts in the format certification teams expect to review.
Design compliance summary
A structured summary organized by regulation, means of compliance, affected functions, design records, safety classification, verification status, and open exceptions.
Certification evidence matrix
A requirement-to-rule-to-test-to-result matrix with baselines, owners, supplier artifacts, anomalies, and approval state.
SOI or review package prep
Source-linked packages for planning, development, verification, configuration, and quality review gates, with gaps highlighted before the review.
SAS / HAS ingest and comparison
Supplier software and hardware accomplishment summaries parsed against program requirements, lifecycle objectives, problem reports, and release baselines.
Change impact report
Impacted requirements, hazards, interfaces, parts, code, test cases, documents, suppliers, and authority commitments in one reviewable output.
FAA/ODA-facing artifact draft
Draft compliance text, attachment indexes, open-item lists, and substantiation summaries formatted for engineering and certification approval.
Safe AI
AI-first does not mean uncontrolled.
The model is built for aerospace accountability: private infrastructure, ITAR and export-control boundaries, permission-aware retrieval, source citations, human review, and auditable approval workflows.
Private deployment boundaryCustomer IP, supplier data, export-controlled records, and authority correspondence stay inside approved infrastructure.
Permission-aware retrievalThe intelligence layer can only retrieve records the user is allowed to see, with classification and supplier boundaries enforced.
Source-linked outputsEvery generated statement cites the requirement, test, report, drawing, release, or approval record it came from.
Human approval gateAI produces drafts, comparisons, summaries, and gap lists; accountable engineering and certification personnel approve the baseline.
Audit trailPrompts, sources, generated outputs, reviews, edits, and approvals are retained for internal quality and certification defensibility.