Engineering

'Safe-by-design' — the four-question test

2 min readMati Melchior
'Safe-by-design' — the four-question test

Yesterday's post defined "safe-by-design" and noted that it's industry vernacular — not a defined term in any safety standard. Today is the practical test: four questions that separate serious safety engineering from marketing copy.

Question 1: Can you name your SIL or PL target?

Every safety architecture built to IEC 61508 or ISO 13849 starts with a quantified target derived from hazard analysis and risk assessment. SIL 2 for a collaborative robot application. PL d for a machinery safety function. The target defines the hardware fault tolerance, the diagnostic coverage, the software development rigor, and the assessment independence. "Working toward certification" is not a target. A number is.

Question 2: Can you describe your redundancy architecture?

IEC 61508-2 defines architectural constraints that link SIL capability to hardware fault tolerance. A SIL 2 system with high diagnostic coverage can use a single-channel architecture. A SIL 3 system typically requires dual-channel with diversity. The architecture determines how the system handles random hardware failures. "We have dual processors" is a component fact. "Dual-channel with diverse software on hardware-logic and microcontroller, cross-monitored with independent watchdogs" is an architecture.

Question 3: Can you show how software updates get re-certified?

This is the question that will matter most after January 2027. Under EU Machinery Regulation 2023/1230, the manufacturer retains lifecycle obligations for software modifications that affect safety functions. A model update that changes inference behavior may invalidate the original conformity assessment. "We'll handle that later" means it isn't designed in. A real answer describes the impact analysis process, the regression test suite, and the re-assessment trigger criteria.

Question 4: Can you demonstrate fallback behavior under sensor failure?

What does the robot do when the LiDAR returns garbage data? When the camera feed drops? When the force-torque sensor saturates? The IEC 61508 concept of a defined safe state requires that the system's response to detectable failures is specified, tested, and documented. If the answer is "it stops and alerts the operator" — that may be the right answer for the application. If there is no answer — the safety claim is aspirational, not engineered.

These four questions aren't a standard. They're a filter derived from real engineering requirements in IEC 61508, ISO 13849, and EU 2023/1230. A vendor who can answer all four clearly is doing the work. A vendor who deflects on all four is doing the marketing.

Share

Physical AI Safety Dispatch

Monthly analysis. No spam. One exclusive insight per issue.

One issue per month. Unsubscribe in one click from any email. Privacy policy.

Regulation

What five weeks of counting found

104 days separate 8 October 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply as a cut-off with no transition period. Thirty-nine notified bodies held a current notification on 13 September 2026, against one hundred and forty-four under the Directive it replaces. No harmonised standard has yet been cited under the Regulation, the application guide is expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, no readiness figure has been published, and none of the seven certification bodies checked publishes how long the work takes. The deadline is measured to the day. Almost nothing behind it is.

Read →

Regulation

You have 127 days. Nobody publishes how long this takes.

127 days separate 15 September 2026 from 20 January 2027, when Regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will apply. Seven certification bodies were checked for a published duration benchmark and not one publishes it, so what follows is what is documented instead: the first assessor notified on 8 September 2024, roughly twenty-eight months before the Regulation applies, no harmonised standard yet cited under the Regulation, and seven trade associations on record that machinery was the only sector left out of the Omnibus IV transition period.

Read →

We use cookies

This site uses essential cookies to function and, with your consent, analytics cookies (Google Analytics) to understand how the site is used. Learn more.