Approaching Safety-Argumentation-by-Design: A Requirement-based Safety Argumentation Life Cycle for Automated Vehicles

Abstract

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 both the system and argumentation from the earliest stages. Initially, we extend a systematic design model for automated driving functions with an argumentation layer to address prevailing misconceptions regarding the development of safety arguments in a process context. Identified limitations of this extension motivate our complementary design of a dedicated argumentation life cycle that serves as an additional process viewpoint. Correspondingly, we define literature- and expert-based process requirements. To illustrate the safety argumentation life cycle that we propose as a result of implementing these consolidated requirements, we demonstrate principles of the introduced process phases (baselining, evolution, continuous maintenance) by an argumentation example on an operational design domain exit response.