An unpopular opinion about STC and modification work: the minor/major classification meeting is one of the most expensive, least-documented moments in the whole certification process.
Why do I think that it's expensive? Because a wrong classification has both immediate effect in costs AND ripple effects well beyond closure of the certification project. That point in time is where real technical judgement gets applied - someone basically decides whether a change requires EASA involvement. And strangely enough, most are not thinking of involving the Agency in this, when they have doubts - althought the do pay an annual fee 🙂 Let's face it, sometime that's a genuinely hard call, and getting it wrong either over-engineers a trivial modification or under-classifies one that needed a full STC review and authority involvement.
It's undocumented because, in a lot of organisations, that judgement lives in an email thread, a meeting note, or someone's memory of "we decided this was minor because X." When an auditor (or a new colleagues two years later) asks why a modification was classified the way it was, the honest answer is often "let me go and ask around."
If the classification decision itself isn't a structured, traceable piece of compliance evidence, you've built your whole modification programme on a foundation you can't reproduce.
How does your organisation currently capture - and defend, years later - a minor/major classification decision? Would love to hear if that is a real problem for you and civires can help you there! - https://www.civires.com/contact