15+ years in automotive functional safety.  ·  ISO 26262  ·  ASPICE  ·  ASIL-D  ·  Built by engineers, not consultants.
Automotive Functional Safety

Your functional safety documentation.
Done in days, not weeks.

AI agents that handle HARA, FMEDA, and requirements traceability — so your engineers can focus on engineering.

Get in touch

The documentation never ends. We know.

Every project brings the same mountain: hazard analyses, FMEDA updates, safety cases, traceability matrices. Done manually, it takes weeks and drains your best engineers. Done poorly, it fails the audit.

We built AI agents trained on ISO 26262 and ASPICE that take on the documentation burden — producing audit-ready output while your team keeps moving. Not a SaaS tool you have to learn. A service that delivers results.

We eat our own cooking. Every workflow we sell to clients, we run internally first. If it doesn't hold up under an automotive safety audit, we don't offer it.

What We Do

HARA & FMEDA Preparation

AI-assisted hazard analysis and failure mode analysis. We structure your HARA from your system description, build your FMEDA with FIT rate allocation and diagnostic coverage calculations, and compute SPFM/LFM metrics per ISO 26262 Part 5. You review and approve — we do the legwork.

Requirements Traceability

Import your DOORS or Polarion exports. Our agents map requirements to design, test cases, and safety goals — surfacing gaps before auditors do. Traceability matrices delivered clean and complete.

Audit & Assessment Prep

ASPICE assessment coming up? ISO 26262 functional safety audit? We run a gap analysis against your current evidence, fix the documentation holes, and prep your team for the assessor questions.

Built on real credentials

Not a startup pitching AI tools. A certified functional safety engineer who built AI to solve the problems he lived with for 15 years.

TÜV Saar AFSE #39ISO 26262 CertifiedASPICE Lead AssessorASIL D Cleared15+ Years Experience

Latest from the blog

All posts →
Which AI to Use for ISO 26262 Documentation — And What It Actually Costs

25 February 2026

Which AI to Use for ISO 26262 Documentation — And What It Actually Costs

Choosing AI infrastructure for automotive safety documentation is different from normal AI procurement. This article covers deployment options (standard API, enterprise tier, private cloud, self-hosted), model comparison for safety work, real cost estimates, and what we actually run.

 From RAG to Agents: How We Made Our Safety AI Actually Think

25 February 2026

From RAG to Agents: How We Made Our Safety AI Actually Think

We promised a follow-up on agentic workflows. Here it is. After two years of RAG for ISO 26262 documentation, we rebuilt the system around multi-agent orchestration. Completeness before human review went from 60-70% to 85-90%. More importantly, where engineers spend their time changed completely. This is what we built, what improved, and what still does not work.

 We Built an AI That Writes ISO 26262 Safety Cases. Here's What We Learned.

31 July 2024

We Built an AI That Writes ISO 26262 Safety Cases. Here's What We Learned.

We actually built it — an AI system that generates functional safety requirements, technical safety requirements, and safety plans that hold up under ISO 26262 assessment. Not a concept. Not a demo. A working prototype we've been testing against real documentation. Here's an honest account of what works, what surprised us, and where human judgment is still non-negotiable. Plus the full architecture, tools used, and what we're building next.

Ready to cut documentation time in half?

Let's talk about your next project. No sales pitch — just an honest conversation about what AI can and can't do for your safety process.

coen@quenos.technology