Waterfall — Test Evaluation & Acceptance Guide

Purpose

This guide defines the testing philosophy, methods, sequencing, cost envelopes, and risk posture for each level of the Waterfall development and verification lifecycle — from first-article component bench tests through multi-node Mission Acceptance Reviews.

Governing Standards

ECSS-E-ST-10-02, MIL-STD-1540, MIL-STD-810H, ISO 15288:2023, AIAA S-117, NASA NPR 7120.5, IEEE 1012 (Verification & Validation), and relevant national space-agency procurement requirements (SSA, UAE-SA).

Reading the Tables

Each level presents test types in execution sequence. Cost ranges reflect typical aerospace and defence programme spend per test campaign — space programmes trend to upper bound; land/naval/airborne defence programmes span the full range depending on quantity and operational environment. Risk = residual programme risk if this level is skipped. Time = calendar days from campaign start to signed acceptance data package.

Cost Tiers

$K – $10K

$10K – $100K

$100K – $1M

$1M – $10M

>$10M

V&V Tags VERVerification (did we build it right?) VALValidation (did we build the right thing?) QAQuality Assurance gate

Waterfall Model — Test Levels & Decomposition Mapping

Test Execution Sequence

Component
Test

Unit / Assembly
Test

Sub-System
Integration

System
Acceptance

System of
Systems

Mission
Validation

Component Test

Lowest testable part — EEE/COTS components, structural elements, optical elements, energetic devices, propellant lines, ammunition/ordnance sub-components, connectors, seals

TRL 3–5 LOW–MED COST 1–30 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Cost Range	Duration	Residual Risk if Skipped
1.1	Dimensional & Visual Inspection	CMM / optical profilometry / visual per IPC-A-610. Verify form, fit, material certification traceability. First article inspection (FAI) record.	VERQA	$0.1K – $5K	1 – 3 d	HIGH
1.2	Electrical Characterisation	DC parametric, leakage, contact resistance, breakdown voltage per MIL-PRF / EEE-INST-002 (space) or MIL-PRF-38535 (defence IC). Confirms lot conformance for flight-grade or mil-spec EEE parts. COTS upscreening per MIL-STD-1562 when mil-spec parts unavailable.	VER	$0.5K – $20K	2 – 7 d	CRITICAL
1.3	Environmental Screening (HALT/ESS)	Highly Accelerated Life Test (HALT) or Environmental Stress Screening (ESS) per MIL-HDBK-2164A. Exposes latent manufacturing defects before integration. Thermal cycling per ECSS-Q-ST-60 (space) or MIL-STD-810H Method 503 (defence). HASS applied to production lots.	VER	$2K – $50K	5 – 21 d	CRITICAL
1.4	Mechanical / Structural Coupon Test	Tensile, fatigue, fracture toughness, compression per ASTM E8/E466. Validates material allowables used in stress analysis margin calculations.	VER	$1K – $30K	3 – 14 d	HIGH
1.5	Radiation Single Event / TID Test	SEE lot sampling + TID irradiation per ESCC 22900 / MIL-STD-750 (space). For defence: nuclear hardening / EMP survivability per MIL-STD-461G RS105 / MIL-STD-2169C HEMP. Required for space > 1000 km orbit and for all nuclear/EMP survivable defence platforms.	VER	$20K – $200K	7 – 30 d	CRITICAL
1.6	Outgassing / Materials Test	ASTM E595 total mass loss (TML ≤ 1.0%) / CVCM (≤ 0.1%) for space optical instruments. For defence: NBC (CBRN) compatibility per DEF STAN 08-012 / AEP-7; material compatibility with fuels, lubricants, cleaning agents per MIL-STD-810H Method 504. Mandatory for any component inside sealed enclosures.	VERQA	$1K – $15K	3 – 10 d	HIGH

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 1 All components must carry a Certificate of Conformance (CoC) and full supply-chain traceability. Space: flight units require Delta-qualification for >5% deviation from qualified baseline; radiation data archived in QDB. Defence: COTS components require upscreening evidence per MIL-STD-1562 or programme-specific Parts Control Board (PCB) approval. Counterfeit-part mitigation per AS5553 / SAE AS6171 mandatory on all programmes. Component-level failures caught here cost 1× — the same defect escaping to system level costs 50–100×.

Unit & Assembly Test

First integration level — PCBs, LRUs, weapon system line-replaceable units, propulsion modules, radar/EO/IR sensor heads, antenna feeds, vehicle sub-assemblies, armament pylons, hydraulic actuators

TRL 4–6 MED COST 5–60 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Cost Range	Duration	Residual Risk if Skipped
2.1	Functional Verification Test (FVT)	Powered bench test against unit-level requirements (URD). All modes exercised. Automated test scripts. Pass/fail per Unit Test Specification (UTS).	VER	$5K – $80K	5 – 14 d	CRITICAL
2.2	Thermal Vacuum (TVAC)	Space: Proto-qualification or acceptance thermal cycling in vacuum per ECSS-E-ST-10-03 (+10°C/−10°C margins, 8+ cycles). Defence/airborne: Thermal cycling per MIL-STD-810H Methods 501/502 at operational temperature extremes. Ground vehicle: DEF STAN 00-035 Pt 3 or MIL-STD-810H Method 503. All: powered-on functional test at temperature plateaus.	VER	$30K – $400K	10 – 35 d	CRITICAL
2.3	Vibration Test (Sine / Random)	Sine sweep (resonance search) + random vibration: space per ECSS-E-ST-10-03C; airborne/helicopter per MIL-STD-810H Method 514 / RTCA DO-160 Section 8; naval per DEF STAN 08-054 / MIL-S-901D (shock). Ground vehicle: MIL-STD-810H Method 514 road spectra. 3 axes; unit powered-on during test.	VER	$15K – $150K	5 – 15 d	CRITICAL
2.4	Shock Test	Space: pyrotechnic SRS per MIL-STD-810H Method 517 / ECSS-E-ST-10-03 for separation events. Defence: high-impact ballistic shock (MIL-S-901D Grade A/B for naval); gun-firing shock (MIL-STD-810H Method 522) for cannon-mounted electronics; explosive blast overpressure per STANAG 4569. Post-shock functional test always mandatory.	VER	$10K – $100K	3 – 8 d	HIGH
2.5	EMC / EMI Unit Level	CE/CS/RE/RS per MIL-STD-461G (ground/naval/airborne defence) or ECSS-E-ST-20-07 (space). Airborne civil: RTCA DO-160 Section 21. Identifies emission peaks before system integration where rework ratio is ~10:1 vs system-level fix.	VER	$20K – $120K	5 – 14 d	HIGH
2.6	Mass / CoM / Inertia Properties	Precision mass measurement + CG / MOI on spin balance rig. Space: per ECSS-E-ST-33, input to ADCS budget. Defence: weight and balance per MIL-HDBK-1803 for aircraft stores; projectile CoM per MIL-STD-1316 for weapon fuzes. Deviations >2% from budget require model update and structural analysis delta.	VER	$5K – $40K	1 – 5 d	MED
2.7	Mechanism & Deployment Test	Space: deployment repeatability in zero-g simulation (air bearing / neutral buoyancy), torque margin ≥ 2×, per ECSS-E-ST-33-01C. Defence: weapon ejection / jettison per MIL-STD-1760, actuator endurance per MIL-DTL-7866, turret traverse and elevation accuracy. All: functional test in temperature extremes; life/endurance cycle count per qualification requirements.	VERVAL	$50K – $300K	7 – 30 d	CRITICAL

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 2 Unit-level ATP must be closed before integration onto sub-system — CDR baseline freeze is the gate. Delta-qualification applies for any design change post-CDR. Space: thermal margin covers orbital worst-case hot/cold soak. Defence: temperature extremes per storage, transit, and operational profiles (e.g. −54°C to +71°C for tropicalised equipment). EMC unit tests eliminate ~90% of system-level EMC rework. Software-on-hardware unit tests (HIL) per DO-178C (airborne) or MISRA (embedded defence) should be baselined at this level. Vibration/shock articles must be immediately followed by FVT to detect latent failure.

Sub-System Integration & Test

Space: ADCS, C&DH, TTC, Power, Propulsion, Payload. Defence: mission avionics, fire-control, radar, EW, comms, propulsion, vehicle management, weapons management — verified as coherent sub-systems

TRL 5–6 HIGH COST 14–90 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Cost Range	Duration	Residual Risk if Skipped
3.1	Interface Verification Test (IVT)	Electrical, mechanical, and software interface compliance per ICD. SpaceWire / MIL-1553 / CAN timing, signal levels, connector mate-unmate cycles.	VER	$50K – $500K	10 – 20 d	CRITICAL
3.2	Functional Integration Test (FIT)	End-to-end functional test of integrated sub-system against SSRS. All operating modes, fault handling, safing, mode transitions exercised.	VER	$100K – $800K	14 – 35 d	CRITICAL
3.3	Thermal Balance Test (TBT)	Steady-state and transient thermal cycling in TVAC. Validate thermal model (±5°C correlation target). Identify unexpected hot spots. Heater controller validation.	VER	$200K – $2M	20 – 60 d	CRITICAL
3.4	EMC System-Sub-System Test	Radiated & conducted emissions/susceptibility with all sub-systems integrated. Intra-spacecraft compatibility (ISC). Validates shielding effectiveness of harness.	VER	$100K – $600K	10 – 25 d	HIGH
3.5	Performance Verification Test	Sub-system KPPs measured against allocations (pointing budget, power budget, link margin). Uses calibrated GSE. Correlation with simulation models.	VERVAL	$80K – $600K	10 – 30 d	HIGH
3.6	Software Integration & Regression	Flight software (FSW) integrated on target hardware. EGSE stimulation. FMEA coverage via fault injection. CI/CD regression suite per IEEE 829. MISRA-C compliance scan.	VERQA	$100K – $1M	30 – 90 d	CRITICAL

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 3 Sub-system Integration Review (SIR) gates entry; Sub-system Test Readiness Review (TRR) required before TVAC. All open NCRs must be dispositioned before advancing to L4. Thermal balance test correlation drives the thermal model update used in orbital predictions. Software regression baseline must be frozen at CDR +30 days maximum. Interface verification provides the most cost-effective defect discovery point for harness and ICD non-conformances.

System Acceptance Test (SAT)

Complete platform — spacecraft, aircraft, naval vessel, armoured vehicle, ground radar, C2 system — all sub-systems integrated. Pre-delivery acceptance per contract. Launch / fielding campaign readiness.

TRL 7–8 VERY HIGH COST 30–180 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Cost Range	Duration	Residual Risk if Skipped
4.1	System Functional Test (SFT)	Full-system functional exercise at ambient. All operational modes including emergency. Telemetry/telecommand verification on all interfaces. Basis for acceptance data package.	VERVAL	$500K – $5M	14 – 40 d	CRITICAL
4.2	Acoustic Test	Space: reverberant acoustic chamber per NASA-STD-7001B / ECSS simulating launch fairing environment. Defence/airborne: jet noise and propulsion acoustic environment per MIL-STD-810H Method 515 / RTCA DO-160 Section 7. Naval surface: underway sea-state noise per DEF STAN 08-054. Structures must be at operational configuration (panels deployed, antennas extended).	VER	$300K – $3M	5 – 15 d	HIGH
4.3	System-Level TVAC / Thermal Vacuum	Space: full-spacecraft TVAC with IR lamps/LN₂ shrouds simulating solar/eclipse flux; functional test at temperature plateaus. Defence: climatic chamber per MIL-STD-810H Methods 501–503 (−54°C to +71°C and humidity); salt fog per Method 509; blowing sand/dust per Method 510; icing per Method 521 where operationally required. Airborne: certification chamber environment per DO-160.	VER	$1M – $15M	30 – 90 d	CRITICAL
4.4	Mass Properties & Balance	Flight mass, CoM, principal axis determination. Inputs to launch vehicle (LV) mass budget and ADCS pre-load computation. Deviation must be within launch manifest margins.	VER	$50K – $300K	2 – 5 d	HIGH
4.5	RF / Antenna Pattern Test	Space: TTC and payload antenna patterns in CATR/near-field scanner; confirms link budget margins ≥ 3 dB. Defence: radar cross-section (RCS) measurement in RCS range for stealth platforms; phased array beam pattern in anechoic chamber per MIL-STD-1605; communication antenna VSWR and radiation pattern per MIL-STD-461G. EW systems: threat emitter frequency coverage validation.	VER	$200K – $2M	5 – 20 d	HIGH
4.6	End-to-End (E2E) Compatibility Test	Space: spacecraft + EGSE + LV simulator + ground station; full TT&C link closed, anomaly safing validated. Defence: platform + C2 system + datalinks (Link-16, JREAP-C, SADL) + weapon system + ground/ship control; end-to-end fire-control loop exercised with simulated targets. Cybersecurity penetration test of all external interfaces. Latency, authentication, and fault isolation validated.	VERVAL	$500K – $4M	10 – 30 d	CRITICAL
4.7	Factory Acceptance Test (FAT)	Customer-witnessed, gated by signed test procedure. Demonstrates compliance with contractual KPPs. Delivery Review Board (DRB) closes open items. Space: Launch Readiness Review (LRR) follows. Defence: Preliminary / Final Acceptance Trial (PAT/FAT) per DEF STAN 05-57 or MIL contract terms; Government Acceptance Test (GAT) may be conducted at a separate government facility. Acceptance Data Package (ADP) signed by both parties.	VERVALQA	$100K – $1M	5 – 15 d	CRITICAL

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 4 System TRR is a mandatory gate. All L1–L3 NCRs must be formally closed or waivered. Space: post-TVAC functional test is go/no-go for launch campaign. Defence: Government Acceptance is contractually binding — failures after GAT/FAT constitute Formal Deficiency Reports (FDRs) and may trigger financial penalties or contractual remediation. Safety case (per DEF STAN 00-056 / MIL-STD-882E) must be closed before delivery of any weapon system. Software must hold a Software Release Note (SRN) and completed DO-178C / MISRA audit evidence.

System of Systems (SoS) Integration & Test

Space: constellation + ground segment. Defence: battlespace network — platform + C2 + comms + weapon system + logistics + allied interoperability (NATO, GCC). Covers all node types in the operational architecture.

TRL 8 EXTREME COST 60–365 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Cost Range	Duration	Residual Risk if Skipped
5.1	Ground Segment Integration Test	Space: mission control, ground stations, user segment — LEOP simulation, security penetration. Defence: C2 node integration, operations centre, communications network, ISR data pipeline, logistics and sustainment systems. All command/data flows exercised across full protocol stack. Red-team security test of all network interfaces mandatory.	VERVAL	$1M – $20M	30 – 120 d	CRITICAL
5.2	Compatibility / Interoperability Test (IOP)	Multi-node interoperability with all system-of-systems nodes. Space: CCSDS, cross-support agreements, relay satellite IOP. Defence: NATO/coalition interoperability per STANAG 4586 (UAV), Link-16 / JREAP-C, SADL, Variable Message Format (VMF), NATO BLOS datalinks. All: frequency deconfliction, IFF Mode 5 / Mode S, coalition command authentication. Stimulated by STK, JTIDS testbeds, or government-furnished simulation environments.	VERVAL	$2M – $15M	20 – 90 d	CRITICAL
5.3	Launch Rehearsal / Pre-Launch Test	Space: wet/dry dress rehearsals at launch site; propellant loading; RF silence per range safety; countdown with abort scenarios. Defence: deployment rehearsal (ship departure, air tasking order execution, vehicle convoy); pre-mission system checks; communications authentication rehearsal; Rules of Engagement (RoE) data upload and verification. All: abort/emergency procedures validated with live operators.	VER	$3M – $30M	14 – 60 d	CRITICAL
5.4	Constellation / Network Performance Test	Space: constellation coverage, capacity, handover, beam scheduling — HIL with HFSS and channel emulators. Defence: kill chain timing (sensor-to-shooter latency), network resilience under degraded/denied comms (EMCON), multi-domain integration (air/land/sea/space/cyber). All results validated against SoS KPP matrix including availability under contested environments.	VERVAL	$1M – $10M	30 – 120 d	HIGH
5.5	Cybersecurity & Resilience Test	Red-team penetration test of all interfaces. Space: anti-jam, anti-spoof, command authentication, key management per CISA Space Systems / NIST SP 800-82. Defence: full cyber adversary simulation per DISA STIG / RMF ATO process; TEMPEST/EMSEC per NSA/CSS EPL; supply chain cyber risk per NIST SP 800-161. All systems handling classified data: COMSEC evaluation and key management audit.	VERVALQA	$500K – $5M	20 – 90 d	CRITICAL
5.6	Simulation-Based Acceptance Test (SBAT)	High-fidelity M&S (digital twin) exercise of full SoS with injected failure scenarios. Operator crew training validation. Covers scenarios infeasible in hardware-only environment.	VAL	$500K – $8M	30 – 90 d	HIGH

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 5 SoS tests require multi-organisation coordination and formal test bed agreements — government-furnished test ranges or ranges shared with allies are common. Test data often classified; handling instructions must be defined before test. Defence: IOP results reviewed at Operational Test Authority (OTA) level; NATO interoperability certification (NCI Agency) required for coalition-interoperable systems. Cybersecurity findings require executive risk acceptance (Authority to Operate, ATO) before deployment. Launch / deployment rehearsal anomaly closure is on the critical path — build ≥14 days float.

Mission Validation

Space: LEOP, on-orbit commissioning, operational performance validation. Defence: Initial Operational Capability (IOC), Full Operational Capability (FOC), operational trials — confirmation that the system achieves its mission objectives in the real operational environment.

TRL 9 MISSION COST 30–365 DAYS

#	Test Type	Method & Objective	V&V	Incremental Cost	Duration	Risk Classification
6.1	Launch & Early Orbit Phase (LEOP)	Space: acquisition of signal, initial attitude control, deployment sequence, first TC/TM loop closed — 24/7 LEOP team, success criteria: safe operational mode within 72 h. Defence IOC: first operational unit equipped, trained, and ready to deploy; initial live-fire demonstration; command and control linkages established. Criteria: all safety-critical functions operational, no outstanding Cat-1 deficiencies.	VER	$5M – $50M+	1 – 14 d	CRITICAL
6.2	In-Orbit Test (IOT)	Space: RF payload in-orbit test from calibration ground station — EIRP, G/T, saturation flux density, IM products; mandatory for ITU frequency coordination compliance. Defence: operational test of sensors, weapons, and comms in live environment by independent OTA (e.g. AFOTEC, OPTEVFOR). Includes live-fire weapons test where applicable. Results feed OT&E report submitted to acquisition authority.	VERVAL	$1M – $10M	14 – 45 d	HIGH
6.3	On-Orbit Commissioning (OOC)	Space: full payload and platform functional validation — ADCS mode transitions, thermal characterisation, propulsion ΔV calibration, solar array output. Defence: full mission profile exercise in realistic threat environment; Operational Evaluation (OPEVAL); weapon system integration live-fire; logistics and sustainment chain validation; crew/operator training certification baseline.	VERVAL	$3M – $30M	30 – 180 d	CRITICAL
6.4	Operational Acceptance Test (OAT)	Customer-witnessed mission scenario. Space: full task-collect-process-disseminate thread. Defence: end-to-end operational mission thread — detection, identification, engagement, battle damage assessment. Final handover from programme office to operational command. Space: Mission Acceptance Record (MAR). Defence: Initial/Full Operational Capability declaration (IOC/FOC), signed Government Acceptance Certificate.	VALQA	$1M – $8M	15 – 60 d	CRITICAL
6.5	Mission Performance Verification (MPV)	Statistical performance sampling over initial operational period (30–180 days operational data). Space: KPP compliance — revisit, resolution, availability, latency. Defence: mission effectiveness metrics (Pk, detection probability, false alarm rate, availability under operational tempo). Results submitted to programme manager and acquisition authority for final close-out and lessons-learned feed-in to next programme.	VAL	$500K – $5M	30 – 90 d	HIGH
6.6	Lessons Learned & Model Correlation	On-orbit telemetry vs. pre-launch prediction correlation. Model updates for future programmes. OAR (On-orbit Anomaly Report) root-cause closure. Programme retrospective review (PRR). Feeds TRL database.	VALQA	$200K – $2M	30 – 120 d	MED

⚑ Acceptance Criteria Notes — Level 6 Mission validation is the ultimate V&V act — at this level no rework is possible for most faults; the only corrective actions are software patches, operational workarounds, or mission termination. LEOP contingency procedures must be fully rehearsed and staffed. OAT failure results in contractual non-delivery and programme financial exposure. Mission Performance Verification data typically feeds into the agency's return-on-investment reporting and informs requirements for follow-on missions.

Verification & Validation Methods — Applied Across All Levels

TEST (T)

VER

Direct measurement of physical performance under controlled stimuli — the highest fidelity V&V method
Qualification, Proto-qualification, Acceptance campaigns on engineering models (EM), qualification models (QM), flight/production models (FM/PM), and prototypes
Hardware-in-the-Loop (HiL) and Software-in-the-Loop (SiL) hybrid environments
Environmental: vibration, acoustic, shock, TVAC, EMC, radiation
Functional: FVT, FIT, ATP — end-to-end stimulated scenarios

ANALYSIS (A)

VER

Mathematical, computational, or logical examination — acceptable when test is impractical (space environment, life, cost)
Structural FEA, CFD thermal, orbital mechanics, link budgets, FMEA/FMECA
Worst-case analysis (WCA), stress-derating, margin policy compliance
Software code coverage, static analysis (MISRA, polyspace), timing analysis (WCET)
Must be traceable to validated models — analysis alone requires prior model correlation data

INSPECTION (I)

Examination of hardware/software/documents against standards, checklists, or specifications
Workmanship, assembly, and materials verification — uses ATP checklists
Drawing conformance, NCR dispositions, waiver/deviation register review
Software code review, design document audits, configuration management audits (FCA/PCA)
Quickest and lowest cost method — applied first; does not substitute for test

DEMONSTRATION (D)

VAL

Qualitative observation of operation under representative conditions — passes/fails by observable outcome
Deployment demonstrations, operator procedure walkthroughs, CONOPS dry-runs
Applicable for ergonomic, usability, and operator interface requirements
OAT scenario demonstrations — mission thread run in front of customer representative
Supports VAL when quantitative measurement is infeasible or unnecessary

SIMULATION (S)

VAL

High-fidelity M&S substituting for infeasible physical tests — requires validated simulation baseline
Orbital dynamics, re-entry trajectories, constellation coverage scenarios
Digital twin environments for LEOP rehearsal and fault injection
Must be bounded by sensitivity analysis; uncertainty must be characterised
Accepted by agencies only when test is cost-prohibitive and model pedigree is documented

REVIEW OF DESIGN (RoD)

VER

Formal review of design documentation, drawings, heritage data, and similarity arguments
Used to credit heritage qualification — must document design delta and environmental delta
Qualification by similarity accepted only when ΔDesign < 5% on critical parameters
Drives Qualification Status Review (QSR) documentation and acceptance waivers
Lowest risk method only when heritage is truly identical — high risk of over-reliance

Acceptance Criteria — Cross-Level Framework

◈ Technical Performance Measures (TPMs)

All KPPs (Key Performance Parameters) met with documented margins. No critical KPP below threshold value without formal waiver.

Structural margins: ≥ 1.25× limit load (proof), ≥ 1.4× (ultimate) unless agreed alternate criteria per ECSS-E-ST-32.

Power margin ≥ 10% end-of-life (EOL) at worst-case eclipse with degraded solar arrays factored in.

Pointing error ≤ allocation per error budget (0.3σ allocation used for worst-case RSS) across all modes.

Link margin ≥ 3 dB in all operational modes including worst-case atmospheric fading for LEO/GEO orbit.

◈ Quality & Process Gates

Zero open Category 1 NCRs (safety/mission-critical failures) at any level gate. All Cat 2 NCRs with accepted dispositions.

Acceptance Data Package (ADP) 100% complete: test reports, as-built drawings, NCR register, CoC chain complete.

Configuration audit (FCA/PCA) passed before delivery milestone. As-built vs. as-designed delta documented and accepted.

Qualification status of all procurement items confirmed in Qualification Status Register (QSR). No unqualified components on flight units.

Test Completion Report signed by independent test authority. Customer and prime contractor witnesses documented.

◈ Review Gates & Decision Points

SRR — System Requirements Review: requirements baselined before any test planning. Entry: draft SRS exists.

PDR/CDR — Design frozen before environmental qualification. Test specifications approved at CDR.

TRR — Test Readiness Review at each level before physical test campaign begins.

SAR/FAR — System/Flight Acceptance Review closes L4. Signed ADP required for CDL (Certificate of Delivery).

ORR / MAR — Operational Readiness Review / Mission Acceptance Record closes L6. Programme complete.

◈ Verification Closure Rules

Every requirement in the Verification Requirements Matrix (VRM) has exactly one primary V&V method assigned. No orphan requirements.

Test results must be traceable to specific requirement allocations in DOORS / JAMA or equivalent RM tool.

Requirements verified by Analysis alone must carry a formal Analysis Report with reviewer signatures and bounded uncertainty.

Heritage credit requires a delta analysis report demonstrating that design, environment, and manufacturing process changes are within heritage bounds.

Validation (VAL) closure requires user-representative sign-off confirming mission objective achievement — not just contractor self-attestation.

Programme Cost & Risk Summary — All Levels (Space / Defence Range)

Level	Name	Total Test Cost (Typical)	% of Programme Cost	Calendar Duration	Rework Cost Multiplier if Failed	Skip Risk
L1	Component	$0.1K – $300K	1 – 3%	1 – 30 d	1× (baseline)	CRITICAL
L2	Unit / Assembly	$15K – $2M	3 – 8%	5 – 60 d	3–5×	CRITICAL
L3	Sub-System	$200K – $5M	5 – 12%	14 – 90 d	10–20×	CRITICAL
L4	System	$1M – $25M	8 – 20%	30 – 180 d	50–100×	CRITICAL
L5	System of Systems	$5M – $80M	10 – 25%	60 – 365 d	Irreversible	CRITICAL
L6	Mission	$5M – $100M+	15 – 30%	30 – 365 d	Mission Loss	CRITICAL