During hazard and risk ana­ly­ses, we exami­ne, among other things, how the iden­ti­fi­ca­ti­on and cate­go­riza­ti­on of poten­ti­al hazards have been con­duc­ted. Poten­ti­al hazards mani­fest through mal­func­tions of the vehic­le sys­tem.

Fur­ther­mo­re, we review the defi­ned safe­ty goals and assess whe­ther they are sui­ta­ble for cove­ring the hazards.

When revie­w­ing func­tion­al and tech­ni­cal safe­ty con­cepts, among others, we pay atten­ti­on to whe­ther rele­vant assump­ti­ons and cons­traints from the hazard and risk ana­ly­sis have been cor­rect­ly and com­ple­te­ly incor­po­ra­ted.

The pro­ject spe­ci­fi­ca­ti­ons have to be ful­ly spe­ci­fied and pre­sen­ted in detail. A tech­ni­cal safe­ty con­cept has to explain what is to be imple­men­ted, while a Func­tion­al Safe­ty con­cept should descri­be how it is to be imple­men­ted.

Safe­ty cases aim to pre­sent and eva­lua­te the safe­ty argu­men­ta­ti­on. Ther­eby, the indi­vi­du­al work results have to be com­pi­led to ensu­re appro­pria­te veri­fia­bi­li­ty.

We veri­fy for you whe­ther this evi­dence has been pro­vi­ded com­ple­te­ly and cor­rect­ly, and whe­ther the argu­men­ta­ti­on is plau­si­ble and suf­fi­ci­ent­ly jus­ti­fies the achie­ve­ment of Func­tion­al Safe­ty. Ther­eby, the sub­ject of each safe­ty evi­dence and its scope have to be cle­ar­ly descri­bed.