FMEA
Failure Mode and Effects Analysis
RPN scoring · 24 entriesThe meme was missing one level
LEVEL 5
🧠
When Level 4 isn't enough... because people could die
LEVEL 1🧠 Manual Unit Test
LEVEL 2🧠🧠 Automated API Test Script
LEVEL 3🧠🧠🧠 E2E Browser Test
LEVEL 4🧠🧠🧠🧠 AI App → AI Review → Auto-PR
LEVEL 5🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠 DO-178C Level D × ISO 26262 ASIL D Safety Compliance Pipeline
One command. Full evidence chain.
14 Verification Phases — 0.68 seconds
1Safety Requirements & Hazard Analysis (ISO 26262 Part 3)
2DO-178C Level D Verification (Tables A-3..A-7)
3ISO 26262 ASIL D Verification (Part 6, Tables 1-12)
4Structural Coverage Analysis (Statement/Branch/MC-DC)
5Fault Injection Campaign (10 types × 10 locations)
6Safety Analysis Suite (FMEA + FTA + HAZOP)
7WCET Analysis (Static + Cache + Interrupts)
8AI-Powered Safety Code Review (MISRA-C/CERT-C/AUTOSAR)
9HIL Simulation Campaign (50 scenarios)
10Cross-Standard Traceability (DO-178C ↔ ISO 26262)
11GSN Safety Case Auto-Generation
12Unified Multi-Standard Compliance Report
13secureFlows Encrypted Artifact Persistence
14Final Summary & Risk Assessment
Break it before reality does
We inject 1,000 faults on purpose
BIT_FLIPSTUCK_ATCOSMIC_RAYEMI_DISTURBANCE
POWER_GLITCHTRANSIENTDELAYDROPOUT
1,000faults injected
95.4%detection rate
99.2%SPFM · ≥99% required
7.5PMHF in FIT · <10 required
Yes, we simulate cosmic rays hitting your brake controller. Because they do.
No single lens is enough
FMEA + FTA + HAZOP — All Three. Mandatory.
FTA
Fault Tree Analysis
Minimal cut sets · Boolean probabilityHAZOP
Hazard and Operability Study
7 guidewords · risk matrixISO 26262 Part 8 Clause 10 requires all three for ASIL D
Proof, not vibes
MC/DC — Because 100% isn't enough
Statement98%
Branch95%
MC/DC92%
Modified Condition/Decision Coverage
MISRA-C:2012CERT-CAUTOSAR C++14DO-178C Coding
Every boolean condition must independently affect the decision. Every. Single. One.
An argument you can audit
We auto-generate a 24-node safety argument
$ render-safety-case --format gsn
G1: System meets ASIL D safety requirements
├── S1: Argument by verification
│ ├── G2: All safety requirements verified
│ │ ├── E1: Test results
│ │ └── E2: Coverage analysis
│ └── G3: No single-point faults undetected
│ └── E3: Fault injection report
└── S2: Argument by analysis
├── G4: WCET meets all deadlines
│ └── E4: WCET analysis
└── G5: Safety case is complete
Goal Structuring Notation — proving the system is safe, with evidence
The pipeline doesn't rubber-stamp
Result: 50.4/100 — HIGH Risk — NON-COMPLIANT
01 Requirements & Hazards OK
02 DO-178C Verification OK
03 ISO 26262 Verification OK
04 Structural Coverage OK
05 Fault Injection OK
06 Safety Analysis OK
07 WCET Analysis OK
08 AI Code Review OK
09 HIL Simulation OK
10 Cross-Traceability OK
11 GSN Safety Case OK
12 Compliance Report OK
13 Artifact Persistence OK
14 Risk Assessment OK
15 / 3 safety requirements / hazards
1,000 / 95.4% injections / detection
80 / 24 trace links / standard mappings
24 encrypted artifacts in secureFlows
21,145 report lines
All evidence stored encrypted in secureFlows — because compliance evidence must be tamper-proof · https://www.secure-flows.com
This is what separates “it works on my machine” from “certified for human transport.”