AI & Functional Safety: The ML Safety Lifecycle — From ISO 26262 V-Model to the W-Model

Date
2026-09-03
Location
Online
Host
Zach L

About this event

A live 30-minute expert session on The ML Safety Lifecycle — From ISO 26262 V-Model to the W-Model (AI / ML — AI & Machine Learning Safety). What We'll Cover: Why train-evaluate-retrain loops don't fit a single-pass V and where the ML lifecycle phases interleave with system development Step by step through the W: data specification, training, offline evaluation, integration, field feedback and retraining triggers How the W-model maps onto ISO/PAS 8800 and ISO 26262 phase gates and the plan/report pairs each phase produces Common mistakes: retraining a deployed model without re-entering impact analysis and re-verification The configuration baselines and phase-gate sign-offs an assessor uses to reconstruct the model's history Related topics: ml safety lifecycle · w model · v model machine le

Topics

Registration

View event page

About Functional Safety Foundations

This online session delivers expert-led instruction on the regulatory landscape and implementation approach for Functional Safety Foundations.

The cross-sector fundamentals underlying every functional safety standard: risk as severity × likelihood, the safety function concept, integrity levels, the safety lifecycle, and the split between random and systematic failures.

What it regulates

Shared vocabulary and reasoning: hazard → risk → risk reduction allocation → safety requirement → verified implementation → maintained integrity in operation.

Who must comply

Everyone entering the field — the conceptual base of the entire catalog.

Key requirements of Functional Safety Foundations

  • Hazard and risk fundamentals
  • Safety function anatomy: sensor-logic-actuator with defined safe state
  • Integrity ladders (SIL/PL/ASIL/DAL) as risk-reduction currencies
  • Random vs systematic failure treatment
  • Lifecycle and management of functional safety incl. competence

Key concepts: Functional Safety Foundations

Functional safety management
Planning, competence, documentation and assessment wrapped around technical work.
Random vs systematic
Hardware wear-out/chance failures quantified statistically versus design/process errors controlled by rigor.
Risk reduction allocation
Distributing required risk reduction among mechanical design, safeguards, control functions and procedures.
Safe state
The defined condition a function drives the equipment to on demand or fault.

Frequently asked questions: Functional Safety Foundations

Why can't testing alone prove safety?

Rare-event targets (like 1e-7/h) are unverifiable by test duration, and systematic errors evade random testing — hence the standards' dual machinery of quantified hardware analysis plus process rigor and independent assessment.

Standard information based on the published text of Functional Safety Foundations. Event content is provided by the host. For authoritative guidance, consult the official standard body.