Built for Legacy Programs,
Change Impact, and Audit Readiness
Connect requirements, HARA, TARA, FTA, evidence, and review workflows in one system designed for the most expensive part of compliance: rework, traceability, and audit pressure.
Legacy + Change
Focused on the hardest compliance scenarios
EU + CN
Positioned for cross-market programs
Audit-ready
Traceable workflows from analysis to evidence
Cybersecurity Barriers Are Rising Worldwide
Governments across the world are making automotive cybersecurity certification mandatory. Without it, your vehicles cannot be sold in the world's three largest markets.
European Union
UN R155 / R156
UN R155 (cybersecurity) and R156 (software updates) are required for all new EU type approvals.
No CSMS certificate = no type approval = no EU market access.
China
GB 44495 / GB 44496
GB 44495 (vehicle cybersecurity) and GB 44496 (software updates) become mandatory for all new vehicle types.
The only path to production permits for automotive electronics in China.
South Korea
UNECE WP.29
Following the UNECE WP.29 framework with mandatory cybersecurity requirements rolling out.
Korea Auto Industries Coop. Assoc. driving compliance timelines.
Japan
WP.29 / R155
R155 adoption for domestic market under the Road Transport Vehicle Act.
Japan's Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism oversight.
This is not optional
These regulations are market access gates, not best-practice guidelines. A 3-year vehicle development cycle means: if you're not compliant now, your 2028/2029 vehicles are already at risk.
The Cost of Getting Locked Out
Launch Delay
Program-level impact
Failed audit can delay launch readiness and push revenue recognition to the right.
Market Blocked
Revenue at risk
Without certification, affected programs can lose access to an entire market.
Hardware Recall
Fleet-wide cost
A vulnerable ECU without a safe remediation path can force expensive field action.
Supplier Blacklist
18-24 months
OEMs replace non-compliant suppliers. Re-qualification takes years.
Illustrative Benchmark Scenario
Use this as a directional model for internal planning, not as a universal promise. Actual impact depends on program complexity, process maturity, and evidence quality.
Current State
With Platform
Shorter audit preparation cycles
Lower rework pressure
Decisions and evidence linked
Illustrative scenario only. Validate assumptions against your current workflow, supplier landscape, and audit expectations.
Automotive AI at Senior Expert Level
Independent Codex benchmark confirms: our AI analysis engine performs at the level of a senior automotive safety & cybersecurity expert across all critical domains.
Overall Chain Accuracy
SENIOR EXPERT
Equiv. 8-12 yr expert
Human Expert Equivalence Scale
Senior Expert
8-12 yr exp.
Senior Expert
8-12 yr exp.
Senior Expert
10+ yr exp.
Senior Engineer
5-8 yr exp.
Senior Expert
10+ yr exp.
Evaluated by GPT-5.4 Max + Claude Opus
Cross-validated by two frontier AI models against senior expert ground truth across all ISO 21434 / 26262 analysis domains.
What Does 93.9% Mean?
Overall accuracy equals a senior automotive safety & cybersecurity expert with 8-12 years of hands-on ISO 21434 / 26262 experience.
FTA and Test Plan modules achieve perfect scores — outperforming most individual human experts in these domains.
Processes 5 complete vehicle programs in the time a senior expert handles one — without fatigue or inconsistency.
Available around the clock with consistent quality — no knowledge loss, no training ramp-up, no vacation gaps.
8-Step Structured Reasoning
Asset extraction → Interface mapping → Attack surface → Threat generation → Clause mapping → Evidence binding → Risk ranking → Mitigation — fully traceable AI chain.
Atomic Chain Analysis
Each analysis step produces verifiable, auditable output. No black-box decisions — every AI conclusion links back to regulation clauses and RAG evidence.
Multi-Standard Reasoning
Simultaneous ISO 21434, ISO 26262, UN R155/R156, ASPICE, and 8 Chinese standards (GB/T 44495-44497) in a single analysis run.
1053 MITRE ATT&CK Patterns
Threat intelligence backed by CAPEC/CWE ICS attack pattern database — the largest automotive-specific threat knowledge base available.
Model the Internal Business Case
Use this scenario model to pressure-test the economics of legacy work, change impact, and audit preparation. Review the assumptions before using it in a budget discussion.
Your Organization
Active vehicle programs requiring compliance
Components requiring cybersecurity assessment
Full-time staff dedicated to compliance today
Without Compliance-Wächter
Compliance assessments
90 × 14 days × €1.200
€1.512.000
Audit failure rework
36 failed of 90 (40%) × €25.000
€900.000
Compliance team
3 FTE × €85.000
€255.000
Annual Total
€0
With Compliance-Wächter
AI-assisted assessments
90 × 2.5 days × €1.200
€270.000
Audit failure rework
5 failed of 90 (5%) × €25.000
€125.000
Reduced team
2 FTE × €85.000
€170.000
Platform license
30 components × €3.000
€90.000
Annual Total
€0
Illustrative annual delta
€0
75%
modeled cost reduction
0
modeled man-days released
Every Standard. One System.
From cybersecurity to functional safety, from supply chain to data privacy — see what each regulation requires and how we automate it.
UN R155
Cybersecurity Management
EU type approval for vehicle cybersecurity. Mandatory for all new vehicles since 2024.
UN R156
Software Update Management
Secure OTA update processes. Required for EU type approval alongside R155.
ISO 21434
Cybersecurity Engineering
Full lifecycle cybersecurity process from concept to decommissioning.
ISO 26262
Functional Safety
Safety integrity levels (ASIL) and hazard analysis for automotive systems.
ASPICE
Process Maturity
VDA ASPICE Annex D traceability from goals to validation evidence.
GDPR
Vehicle Data Privacy
DPIA generation, cross-border transfer mapping, and processing registers for connected vehicles.
TISAX
Supplier Security
Supply chain cybersecurity assessment with questionnaires and risk tracking.
GB 44495
China Cybersecurity
China's mandatory vehicle information security standard. Required from 2026.
Structured effort
less manual coordination
Fewer rework loops
clearer ownership and handoffs
Gap visibility
across analysis and evidence
Days, not weeks
in strong-fit scenarios
Where Compliance-Wächter Fits
Compare platform categories instead of vendor names to see where engineering-native compliance orchestration is missing.
| Capability | Connected Vehicle Platform | Horizontal GRC Platform | Safety Analysis Suite | Requirements Stack | Compliance-Wächter |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Engineering analysis depth | Specialist | Integration-based | Native | ||
| Change-aware impact analysis | Limited | Integration-based | Partial | Native | |
| Legacy delta workflows | Limited | Native | |||
| Audit evidence orchestration | Partial | Partial | Partial | Native | |
| Automotive regulation depth | Operations-led | Horizontal | Method depth | Automotive-native | |
| Vehicle operations and OTA focus | Native | Project layer |
Category-level comparison for market education. Exact feature depth varies by product, version, and deployment scope.
What teams ask before they buy
Representative buyer conversations from the automotive compliance workflow we are targeting.
“We do not need another dashboard. We need to know what changes when requirements move and what evidence has to be updated.”
Representative buyer signal
Engineering lead, EU Tier-1 supplier
“Our biggest pain is not the first analysis. It is the rework after late requirement changes and the audit scramble that follows.”
Representative buyer signal
Compliance manager, European OEM program
“If a tool can help us bridge China and Europe without rebuilding traceability from scratch, that changes the economics of export programs.”
Representative buyer signal
Cybersecurity lead, China-to-EU vehicle program
Book a Working Session
Tell us where the pressure is highest: legacy programs, requirement changes, or audit readiness. We will tailor the session to your current workflow instead of giving you a generic demo.
Best if you include your current toolchain, active standards, and whether you are evaluating a pilot in the next 3-6 months.
What happens in the session
We map your current workflow, handoff points, and evidence bottlenecks across engineering and compliance.
We focus the walkthrough on the right path: legacy delta analysis, change-aware impact, or audit-ready evidence orchestration.
We identify whether a pilot is a fit, what data would be needed, and what success should look like.