DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne SystemsvsSQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food
See exactly how DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls map to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems maps to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food with 19% coverage across 7 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 36 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls identifies 29 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 36 controls analysed | 693 frameworks | 819K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 13 of 13 mapped controls across 5 domains. Sign up to explore all 819K+ mappings across 693 frameworks.
Software Planning Process(2 mappings)
Software Development Process(1 mappings)
Verification of Requirements (Tables A-3 & A-4)(3 mappings)
Verification of Design and Code (Tables A-4 & A-5)(3 mappings)
Configuration Management (Table A-8)(4 mappings)
Related Comparisons
Other DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems comparisons
Other SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 693 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 693 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (819K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems has 36 controls across its framework, while SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food covers 30 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 7 overlapping controls (19% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7), where 6 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls have no direct SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food equivalent.
How many controls map between DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
Of 36 total DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls, 7 map directly to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food controls — representing 19% coverage. The remaining 29 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems to SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
29 DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems controls have no direct equivalent in SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food. The highest concentration of gaps is in Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7) with 6 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between DO-178C / ED-12C — Software Considerations in Airborne Systems and SQF Code Edition 9 — Safe Quality Food?
The domain with the highest gap count is Testing and Integration Verification (Tables A-6 & A-7) (6 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.