ISO 21448: SOTIF for AEB — A Case Study in False Positives, False Negatives, and Trade-offs

Date
2027-06-03
Location
Online
Host
Zach L
Register

About this event

A live 30-minute expert session on SOTIF for AEB — A Case Study in False Positives, False Negatives, and Trade-offs (ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality). What We'll Cover: Why AEB is the canonical SOTIF problem: both action and inaction can be hazardous, and where each sits in the hazard identification The case study step by step: hazard pairs, triggering conditions for false activation (overhead bridges, steel plates) and non-activation (occluded pedestrians) How the analysis maps to ISO 21448 clauses and produces paired acceptance criteria and a decision-threshold rationale artifact Common mistakes: optimizing only miss rate, no consumer-metric linkage (Euro NCAP), threshold changes shipped without re-validating the other error class The evidence assessors expect: trade-off documentation showing both error classes evaluated against acceptance criteria at every threshold change Related topics: aeb automatic emergency braking · phantom braking · false positive false negative · intervention threshold · occluded pedestrian · euro ncap aeb · case study sotif · hazard pairs · decision threshold · braking trade off · vru protection · activation logic · threshold validation · consumer metrics Critical Systems Analysis provides embedded functional safety consulting for ISO 21448 — Safety of the Intended Functionality. Learn more: https://criticalsystemsanalysis.com Partner with us: https://meetings.hubspot.com/benjamin-twombly/strategic-partnerships

Topics

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.