Verification, Traceability and Certification

Accel­er­ate cer­ti­fi­ca­tion with com­pre­hen­sive ver­i­fi­ca­tion, and trace­abil­i­ty built for glob­al safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty stan­dards.

As embed­ded sys­tems grow in com­plex­i­ty, per­for­mance alone is not enough. You must demon­strate that safe­ty and secu­ri­ty objec­tives, includ­ing deter­min­is­tic tim­ing, are ver­i­fied and trace­able. Approval depends on evi­dence that require­ments are imple­ment­ed, risks are addressed, and ver­i­fi­ca­tion is com­plete.

LDRA tech­nol­o­gy, now part of TASKING, con­nects analy­sis, test­ing, and cov­er­age with cer­ti­fi­ca­tion-ready evi­dence gen­er­a­tion, sup­port­ing safe­ty- and secu­ri­ty-crit­i­cal develop­ment across reg­u­lat­ed indus­tries.

Verification and Certification Challenges


Soft­ware assur­ance is cen­tral to sys­tem approval in reg­u­lat­ed indus­tries.

Safe­ty- and secu­ri­ty-crit­i­cal appli­ca­tions must:

  • Demon­strate com­pli­ance with stan­dards such as DO-178C, ISO 26262, IEC 61508, IEC 62304, EN 50716, and relat­ed guid­ance
  • Pro­vide auditable evi­dence to cer­ti­fi­ca­tion author­i­ties and asses­sors
  • Main­tain full trace­abil­i­ty across require­ments, code, tests, and results
  • Man­age mul­ti­core, mixed-crit­i­cal­i­ty, and long life­cy­cle deploy­ments
  • Inte­grate ver­i­fi­ca­tion into auto­mat­ed develop­ment and con­tin­u­ous ver­i­fi­ca­tion work­flows


Qual­i­fied tools and struc­tured doc­u­men­ta­tion are essen­tial to demon­strate align­ment with indus­try-spe­cif­ic reg­u­la­to­ry expec­ta­tions.

Request Quote

LDRA tools provide solutions for


Safety- and security-
focused analysis and testing

Sta­t­ic analy­sis capa­bil­i­ties, includ­ing cod­ing stan­dards enforce­ment and com­plex­i­ty mea­sure­ment
Dynam­ic tech­niques includ­ing unit and inte­gra­tion test­ing, struc­tur­al cov­er­age up to MC/DC, and source-to-object code trace­abil­i­ty
In tan­dem, sta­t­ic and dynam­ic analy­sis sup­port mul­ti­core deploy­ment and inter­fer­ence assess­ment while gen­er­at­ing objec­tive, repeat­able evi­dence aligned with glob­al safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty require­ments


End-to-end lifecycle traceability from requirements to results

Main­tain bidi­rec­tion­al trace­abil­i­ty across require­ments, source code, tests, analy­ses, and ver­i­fi­ca­tion results to sup­port con­trolled project exe­cu­tion
Pro­vide inte­grat­ed work­flow and impact analy­sis capa­bil­i­ties to man­age com­pli­ance with safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty objec­tives
Deliv­er con­sol­i­dat­ed, cross-project vis­i­bil­i­ty through aggre­gat­ed report­ing, trend analy­sis, and visu­al indi­ca­tors of progress and risk


Certification-ready
workflows for regulated industries

Sup­port for align­ment with inter­na­tion­al safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty stan­dards across mul­ti­ple sec­tors
Struc­tured report­ing and doc­u­men­ta­tion arte­facts suit­able for audit and reg­u­la­to­ry review
Tool qual­i­fi­ca­tion sup­port and evi­dence gen­er­a­tion activ­i­ties tai­lored to project and indus­try expec­ta­tions

Verification and Workflow

Ver­i­fi­ca­tion works best when it is part of how you build soft­ware every day. If test­ing, cov­er­age, and trace­abil­i­ty sit out­side your nor­mal work­flow, issues accu­mu­late and sur­face later, when fixes are more expen­sive and rework affects sched­ules. That is why stan­dards require ver­i­fi­ca­tion to be inte­grat­ed across the life­cy­cle. 

We help you keep ver­i­fi­ca­tion con­trolled as the sys­tem evolves: 

  • Sta­t­ic and dynam­ic analy­sis aligned with safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty objec­tives
    Enforce cod­ing stan­dards, detect defects early, and exe­cute unit and inte­gra­tion tests with­out los­ing con­text.
  • Struc­tur­al cov­er­age aligned with integri­ty level and objec­tives
    Col­lect state­ment, branch, and MC/DC cov­er­age where required, with results linked direct­ly to tests and require­ments.
  • Project level ver­i­fi­ca­tion con­trol
    Man­age require­ments, tests, reviews, and cov­er­age sta­tus in one place so you always know what is com­plete and what is not.
  • Enter­prise level arti­fact and base­line man­age­ment
    Main­tain con­trolled ver­i­fi­ca­tion base­lines and evi­dence across teams and pro­grams, so you present estab­lished evi­dence instead of rebuild­ing it under pres­sure.
  • Con­tin­u­ous ver­i­fi­ca­tion in CI pipelines
    Run analy­sis and test­ing auto­mat­i­cal­ly as code changes, keep­ing ver­i­fi­ca­tion sta­tus cur­rent.

You gain clear vis­i­bil­i­ty into the real state of your soft­ware at both project and orga­ni­za­tion­al lev­els, with­out scram­bling before a review.

Controlling Software Risk

Soft­ware risk builds qui­et­ly. It grows through unman­aged com­plex­i­ty, hid­den depen­den­cies, and gaps between require­ments, code, and tests. If you do not see it early, you deal with it later dur­ing inte­gra­tion, review, or release.

We help you make risk vis­i­ble and man­age­able:

  • Early defect and vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty detec­tion
    Iden­ti­fy cod­ing stan­dard vio­la­tions, data flow anom­alies, dead code, and struc­tur­al weak­ness­es before they prop­a­gate.
  • Com­plex­i­ty, cou­pling, and safe­ty risk insight
    Mea­sure struc­tur­al com­plex­i­ty and data or con­trol cou­pling so archi­tec­tur­al risk is exposed, not assumed.
  • Require­ments, code, and test align­ment
    High­light gaps between intent and imple­men­ta­tion so incom­plete ver­i­fi­ca­tion can­not hide behind doc­u­men­ta­tion.
  • Change impact vis­i­bil­i­ty
    Under­stand what is affect­ed when code evolves, reduc­ing unin­tend­ed side effects and regres­sion risk.
  • Objec­tive evi­dence of risk con­trol
    Main­tain clear records of analy­sis, test­ing, and review to show that soft­ware risk is being active­ly man­aged.

The result is fewer inte­gra­tion sur­pris­es, lower rework, and more pre­dictable deliv­ery.

Managing Multicore Complexity

When you move to mul­ti­core, you intro­duce shared resources, inter­fer­ence paths, and tim­ing vari­abil­i­ty. In hard real-time safe­ty and secu­ri­ty-crit­i­cal sys­tems, deter­min­ism can­not be assumed. It must be ver­i­fied and demon­strat­ed with objec­tive evi­dence.

We help you gen­er­ate that evi­dence:

  • Mul­ti­core tim­ing ver­i­fi­ca­tion
    On tar­get mea­sure­ment and analy­sis to char­ac­ter­ize exe­cu­tion under con­tention and sup­port defen­si­ble tim­ing and WCET strate­gies.
  • Inter­fer­ence vis­i­bil­i­ty
    Trace and exe­cu­tion analy­sis to observe shared resource effects and cross core behav­ior in real deploy­ments.
  • Struc­tur­al cov­er­age in par­al­lel exe­cu­tion
    State­ment, branch, and MC/DC cov­er­age where required, col­lect­ed in true mul­ti­core envi­ron­ments.
  • Cou­pling analy­sis to expose hid­den depen­den­cies
    Data and con­trol cou­pling insight to iden­ti­fy archi­tec­tur­al inter­ac­tions that can ampli­fy inter­fer­ence risk.
  • Trace­able and review-ready ver­i­fi­ca­tion arti­facts
    Objec­tive evi­dence linked to require­ments, test cases, and analy­sis results to sup­port audit and cer­ti­fi­ca­tion review.

You ben­e­fit from the demon­stra­ble con­trol of mul­ti­core behav­ior, mea­sur­able tim­ing per­for­mance, and cer­ti­fi­ca­tion ready ver­i­fi­ca­tion evi­dence. 

Lifecycle Control

Soft­ware rarely fails because of one bad deci­sion. It drifts over time.
Require­ments change, code evolves, tests expand, and teams grow. Unless you man­age that change delib­er­ate­ly, con­trol slips.
Life­cy­cle con­trol is about pre­vent­ing that drift.

We help you keep develop­ment dis­ci­plined from first require­ment to final release:

  • End to end life­cy­cle vis­i­bil­i­ty
    Main­tain clear links between require­ments, design, imple­men­ta­tion, tests, cov­er­age, and analy­sis through­out the life­cy­cle.
  • Con­fig­u­ra­tion and change vis­i­bil­i­ty
    Under­stand what changed, why it changed, and what it affects before it impacts inte­gra­tion or cer­ti­fi­ca­tion.
  • Con­trolled pro­gres­sion through safe­ty and secu­ri­ty mile­stones
    Track ver­i­fi­ca­tion sta­tus against defined objec­tives so readi­ness is mea­sur­able, not assumed.
  • Impact aware­ness dur­ing evo­lu­tion
    Assess the effect of code and require­ment changes on tests, cov­er­age, and pre­vi­ous­ly approved base­lines.
  • Sus­tained gov­er­nance across pro­grams
    Apply con­sis­tent con­trol across teams and projects so process dis­ci­pline scales with sys­tem com­plex­i­ty.

The life cycle stays under con­trol as the sys­tem grows, rather than becom­ing hard­er to man­age with every release.

Proving compliance 

If you leave com­pli­ance until the review, you end up recon­struct­ing it. Trace links get rebuilt, cov­er­age is re-run, reports are regen­er­at­ed, and teams scram­ble to explain gaps that should have been vis­i­ble months ear­li­er.
You have prob­a­bly seen it hap­pen.

To avoid that, com­pli­ance must be built in from the start.

  • Ver­i­fi­ca­tion aligned with safe­ty and cyber­se­cu­ri­ty objec­tives
    Define ver­i­fi­ca­tion activ­i­ties around the objec­tives that apply to your pro­gram, not just around what is con­ve­nient to test.
  • Live require­ment to result trace­abil­i­ty
    Main­tain trace links between require­ments, code, tests, cov­er­age, and analy­sis as the soft­ware evolves, so noth­ing needs to be recre­at­ed later.
  • Struc­tur­al cov­er­age aligned with applic­a­ble integri­ty objec­tives
    Gath­er struc­tur­al cov­er­age appro­pri­ate to your integri­ty level and objec­tives, tied direct­ly to the tests that pro­duced it.
  • Con­trolled com­pli­ance base­lines
    Freeze and man­age approved ver­i­fi­ca­tion snap­shots so what you present reflects the ver­i­fied state of the soft­ware at that point in time.
  • Repeat­able review out­puts
    Gen­er­ate con­sis­tent, defen­si­ble evi­dence for inter­nal over­sight and exter­nal assess­ment with­out rebuild­ing his­to­ry under pres­sure.

The dif­fer­ence is sim­ple. When review starts, you are ready. No scram­bling, and no last-minute recon­struc­tion.

Auditing and Approval

Audits expose weak­ness quick­ly. If trace­abil­i­ty is incom­plete, base­lines are unclear, or ver­i­fi­ca­tion sta­tus is ambigu­ous, it becomes obvi­ous with­in min­utes.
At that point, you are explain­ing instead of demon­strat­ing.

We help you to avoid that posi­tion:

  • Instant vis­i­bil­i­ty of ver­i­fi­ca­tion sta­tus
    Know which require­ments are imple­ment­ed, test­ed, reviewed, and cov­ered at any mile­stone with­out rebuild­ing reports.
  • Con­trolled, ver­sioned base­lines
    Present approved evi­dence that reflects the actu­al state of the soft­ware at a defined point in time.
  • Trace­able, fol­low­able logic
    Show clear links between require­ments, code, tests, cov­er­age, and analy­sis so review­ers can fol­low the chain with­out inter­pre­ta­tion.
  • Con­sis­tent review out­puts
    Gen­er­ate struc­tured arti­facts suit­able for inter­nal gov­er­nance, cus­tomer over­sight, and reg­u­la­to­ry scruti­ny.
  • Evi­dence of safe­ty and secu­ri­ty com­pli­ance
    Sup­port tech­ni­cal dis­cus­sions with objec­tive facts, not recon­struct­ed nar­ra­tives.

When approval depends on scruti­ny, prepa­ra­tion is every­thing.

Scroll to Top