Moderator: Hello and welcome to a new episode of “Applied FuSa,” a podcast for FuSa pragmatists. Release for Production Report is a work product that is created at the end of a product development process to authorize a safety-related product for production. ISO 26262 specifies only five requirements for the Release for Production in Part 2, Section 6.4.13, which will be presented in this episode. In addition, we will also answer the question: Who should own the Release for Production Report?
Expert: Release for Production is the final production release of a safety-related product at the end of product development. The corresponding Release for Production Report is therefore created when all confirmation measures have been successfully completed and the Safety Case has been closed. Let’s take a look at the five requirements for the Release for Production Report as specified in ISO 26262, Part 2, Clause 6.4.13.
Expert: Requirement 6.4.13.1 states that the Safety Case must be closed before the Release for Production. This is self-explanatory, because the Safety Case argues that the product can be considered sufficiently safe and that there is sufficient evidence to support this claim. Unless this has been achieved, a product should not be released for production. Requirement 6.4.13.2 expects that all Confirmation Measure Reports must be available when the Release for Production Report is to be created. This requirement is also immediately clear, because Confirmation Measure Reports represent a relevant part of the mentioned evidence and are often an integral part of the Safety Case. By fulfilling the first requirement, this one is therefore automatically fulfilled as well. The third requirement, 6.4.13.3, states that as another criterion for a Release for Production, there must be sufficient evidence that the product can be considered sufficiently safe. As with the second requirement, this criterion is usually automatically met when the Safety Case is closed. Without evidence supporting this assumption, a Safety Case must not be closed. The fourth requirement, 6.4.13.4, defines four pieces of information that must be available for every Release for Production: 1. Names and signatures of all persons responsible for the release; 2. Version of the product to be released; 3. Configuration of the product to be released; and 4. The release date. Finally, requirement 6.4.13.5 stipulates that for every release, a baseline of the embedded software including any calibration data, as well as a baseline of the hardware, must be documented. This documentation must meet the requirements of Part 8, Chapter 10.
Expert: So much for the 5 requirements of ISO 26262 regarding the Release for Production Report. At this point, it is worth referring to the episode Safety Plan and Safety Case, especially the special structure of the Safety Case presented there. If a Safety Case is set up in this way, then the 5 requirements for the Release for Production Report are automatically fulfilled once the Safety Case is closed. A separate work product is therefore not actually necessary. However, it can be helpful to document in a short summary how requirements 1, 2, and 3 have been fulfilled. The information defined in requirements 4 and 5 can also be easily added to such a summary. In most cases, a Release for Production Report can then be prepared in the form of a two-page document. It is recommended to bring a prepared version of the Release for Production Report to the final assessment. The responsible persons can sign the report upon successful completion of the assessment, and the work product is then available in a valid version. ISO 26262 does not specify any review and agreement process for the Release for Production Report. According to what has been explained here, this is also not necessary. Hopefully, it has become clear that the work product essentially just summarizes some information relevant for the production release. The production release only gains its final, official character through the signatures. Regarding the question of ownership, it is simply recommended that, due to the required information, it makes sense to designate the FS Manager as the owner of the work product. All safety-related activities specified in the Safety Plan come together under his or her responsibility. Therefore, the FS Manager should be the one to release the product for production in the end, after having been able to close the Safety Case and after the correctness of the Safety Case has been confirmed in the final assessment.
Expert: Finally, let’s address the question of whether a Release for Production can be equated with a road release. The answer must be a clear no, as the following example will illustrate. The supplier of a safety-relevant product that is to be integrated into a vehicle must also generate a Release for Production Report so that their product can be produced and delivered to the OEM. This could be, for instance, radar or camera systems that are needed to implement an ADAS function. However, with the Release for Production for such systems, a road release can by no means be automatically granted, since at the very least the so-called safety validation at the vehicle level is still outstanding. The purpose of the safety validation is to demonstrate the sufficient effectiveness of all safety concepts for the fully integrated vehicle. Only then can a road release be granted from a functional safety perspective. However, this is only from the FuSa perspective, as further tests are required for the full release. For example, proof of CO₂ emissions or compliance with EMC standards must also be provided. So, a Release for Production Report merely represents the production release of a product that can then be manufactured and delivered to the OEM, where the product is integrated into the vehicle. The road release always refers to the fully integrated vehicle.
Moderator: Applied FuSa – a podcast for Functional Safety pragmatists. Get your new piece of FuSa every other week.