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

Automotive Functional Safety

AI-assisted functional safety documentation.
Structured faster. Reviewed by experts.

Controlled workflows for HARA preparation, FMEDA structuring, requirements traceability, and assessment evidence — with explicit assumptions, human review, and traceability.

Get in touch

New article: Developing a Non-Deterministic AI Tool According to a Safety Standard

The documentation never ends. We know.

Every project brings the same mountain: hazard analyses, FMEDA updates, safety cases, traceability matrices, and assessor questions. Done manually, it takes time from your best engineers. Done poorly, it creates audit risk.

We use AI-assisted workflows built around controlled ISO 26262 and ASPICE references, templates, review criteria, and traceability checks. The result is structured drafts, evidence packages, and gap findings for expert review — not autonomous safety decisions.

We eat our own cooking. Every workflow we offer is tested against realistic automotive safety review scenarios before we use it with clients.

How we keep it controlled

Defined scope, inputs, assumptions, and review criteria before generation starts.
Traceability from source material to draft outputs and gap findings.
Human approval points before any material is used in a safety lifecycle.

What we do not claim

No autonomous safety decisions or generic ISO 26262 compliance claim for AI output.
No promise that production-ready, validated documentation is completed in “days, not weeks.”
No audit-ready claim without project context, evidence quality, expert review, and assessor alignment.

What We Do

HARA & FMEDA Preparation

Structured HARA and FMEDA drafts from your system description, including candidate failure modes, FIT-rate allocation support, diagnostic coverage assumptions, and SPFM/LFM calculation support. Your team reviews and approves the engineering assumptions.

Requirements Traceability

Import your DOORS or Polarion exports. We propose links between requirements, design elements, tests, and safety goals, then surface gaps and inconsistencies for engineering review.

Audit & Assessment Prep

ASPICE assessment coming up? ISO 26262 functional safety audit? We review your current evidence, identify documentation gaps, and help prepare assessor-facing explanations, traceability views, and supporting material.

Built on real credentials

Not a startup pitching generic AI tools. A certified functional safety engineer applying controlled automation to the documentation problems he has lived with for 15 years.

TÜV Saar AFSE #39ISO 26262 functional safety engineerASIL A–D project experience15+ Years Experience

Latest from the blog

All posts →

20 May 2026

The Limits of Pure Hierarchical Agent Orchestration

Why evidence-based safety assessment needs controlled cross-checking between specialist agents.

28 April 2026

Developing a Non-Deterministic AI Tool According to a Safety Standard

A practical ISO 26262 argument for qualifying non-deterministic AI tools: Clause 11 as the tool qualification frame, a selected Part 6 and Part 2 development process, Clause 12-style evidence where it helps, and TR 5469 as AI-specific support.

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.

Ready to reduce documentation drag?

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.

quenos@quenos.technology

AI-assisted functional safety documentation. Structured faster. Reviewed by experts.