{"paper":{"title":"Approaching Safety-Argumentation-by-Design: A Requirement-based Safety Argumentation Life Cycle for Automated Vehicles","license":"http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/","headline":"A dedicated life cycle for safety argumentation lets developers co-build the case for acceptable residual risk alongside the automated vehicle system from the start.","cross_cats":["cs.SY"],"primary_cat":"eess.SY","authors_text":"Andreas Dotzler, Marcus Nolte, Markus Maurer, Marvin Loba, Nayel Fabian Salem, Niklas Braun, Richard Schubert, Robert Graubohm, Torben Stolte","submitted_at":"2025-11-11T17:34:28Z","abstract_excerpt":"Despite the growing number of automated vehicles on public roads, operating such systems in open contexts inevitably involves incidents. Developing a defensible case that the residual risk is reduced to a reasonable (societally acceptable) level is hence a prerequisite to be prepared for potential liability cases. A \"safety argumentation\" is a common means to represent this case. In this paper, we contribute to the state of the art in terms of process guidance on argumentation creation and maintenance - aiming to promote a safety-argumentation-by-design paradigm, which mandates co-developing b"},"claims":{"count":4,"items":[{"kind":"strongest_claim","text":"We contribute to the state of the art in terms of process guidance on argumentation creation and maintenance - aiming to promote a safety-argumentation-by-design paradigm, which mandates co-developing both the system and argumentation from the earliest stages.","source":"verdict.strongest_claim","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C1","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"weakest_assumption","text":"That extending the systematic design model with an argumentation layer reveals limitations that are best addressed by a separate dedicated life cycle whose phases (baselining, evolution, continuous maintenance) can be implemented via literature- and expert-derived requirements.","source":"verdict.weakest_assumption","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C2","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"one_line_summary","text":"Introduces a requirement-based safety argumentation life cycle to promote co-development of automated vehicle systems and their safety arguments from the start.","source":"verdict.one_line_summary","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C3","attestation":"unclaimed"},{"kind":"headline","text":"A dedicated life cycle for safety argumentation lets developers co-build the case for acceptable residual risk alongside the automated vehicle system from the start.","source":"verdict.pith_extraction.headline","status":"machine_extracted","claim_id":"C4","attestation":"unclaimed"}],"snapshot_sha256":"ab45be9b806941b62d12f2d88e486b59b6440c994d3ae107ad3155fde7e7b8bb"},"source":{"id":"2511.08499","kind":"arxiv","version":3},"verdict":{"id":"b7079539-0a40-473f-96a8-e33b41cf46c8","model_set":{"reader":"grok-4.3"},"created_at":"2026-05-17T23:21:08.903147Z","strongest_claim":"We contribute to the state of the art in terms of process guidance on argumentation creation and maintenance - aiming to promote a safety-argumentation-by-design paradigm, which mandates co-developing both the system and argumentation from the earliest stages.","one_line_summary":"Introduces a requirement-based safety argumentation life cycle to promote co-development of automated vehicle systems and their safety arguments from the start.","pipeline_version":"pith-pipeline@v0.9.0","weakest_assumption":"That extending the systematic design model with an argumentation layer reveals limitations that are best addressed by a separate dedicated life cycle whose phases (baselining, evolution, continuous maintenance) can be implemented via literature- and expert-derived requirements.","pith_extraction_headline":"A dedicated life cycle for safety argumentation lets developers co-build the case for acceptable residual risk alongside the automated vehicle system from the start."},"references":{"count":36,"sample":[{"doi":"","year":2022,"title":"COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING REGULATION (EU) 2022/1426","work_id":"6bf290ab-0449-432e-ac42-ec262b1c8e33","ref_index":1,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2023,"title":"Safety and Acceptance – A View of Two Mysteries,","work_id":"707d9aeb-5e0d-4bc5-86bb-c10dde0936ec","ref_index":2,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":null,"title":"M. Nolte et al. , Anmerkungen zu Sicherheit und Risiken autonomer Straßenfahrzeuge — Teil 1 & 2 . C.H. BECK, Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht, 5/25 (pp. 198-207), continued in 6/25 (pp. 241-251)","work_id":"a2826ad5-de60-4d9a-a0cc-73f5540c745e","ref_index":3,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2000,"title":"(Vision Zero) – an ethical approach to safety and mobility,","work_id":"ba20b0a4-75f5-495d-bf5d-df9801340a44","ref_index":4,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false},{"doi":"","year":2025,"title":"A Review of Conceptualizations of Safety and Risk in Current Automated Driving Regulation,","work_id":"03145d0d-63a5-44a1-9e6c-46d39de6c0cd","ref_index":5,"cited_arxiv_id":"","is_internal_anchor":false}],"resolved_work":36,"snapshot_sha256":"e78957aae1f628e0a0517d71c79487cfcf7a4102d822b2228a043a93d0978dd1","internal_anchors":0},"formal_canon":{"evidence_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"author_claims":{"count":0,"strong_count":0,"snapshot_sha256":"258153158e38e3291e3d48162225fcdb2d5a3ed65a07baac614ab91432fd4f57"},"builder_version":"pith-number-builder-2026-05-17-v1"}