"What is a safety case and why is it important?"

"A safety case is a structured argument, supported by evidence, that a system is acceptably safe in a defined context. It is critical for demonstrating compliance with regulatory standards, guiding risk management, and providing assurance to stakeholders in high-assurance industries such as aviation, nuclear, rail, and medical devices."

"How is a safety case structured?"

"A safety case typically follows a hierarchical structure: at the top are high-level safety claims, which are broken down into arguments and supported by detailed evidence such as hazard analyses, risk assessments, test results, and operational data. Visual tools like Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) help represent these relationships clearly."

"What is the difference between a safety case and an assurance case?"

"While both use structured arguments to demonstrate that a system meets critical requirements, a safety case specifically addresses safety, whereas an assurance case can cover other attributes such as security, environmental impact, or reliability."

"Which industries require safety cases?"

"Safety cases are mandatory or strongly encouraged in industries where failure can have catastrophic consequences, including aviation, nuclear power, railways, defense, medical devices, and increasingly for high-risk AI systems and autonomous vehicles."

"What are common pitfalls in developing safety cases?"

"Common pitfalls include overly broad or narrow claims, focusing on documentation over substance, confirmation bias, lack of traceability, excessive complexity, and failing to update the case as the system evolves. Adopting best practices and reusable patterns helps avoid these issues."

"How does a safety case support regulatory compliance?"

"Regulators require safety cases as evidence that all credible hazards have been identified, risks have been reduced ALARP, and safety management processes are effective. The safety case becomes the primary deliverable for certification, licensing, or operational approval."

Safety Case

A safety case is a structured argument, backed by evidence, demonstrating a system’s safety for its intended use and context.

System Safety Risk Management Compliance Assurance

Safety Case – Structured Argument Demonstrating Safety

Introduction

A safety case is a comprehensive, structured, and documented argument—supported by a body of evidence—that a system, product, or process is acceptably safe to operate within a specific context. It is a central tool in high-integrity domains such as aviation, nuclear power, rail, defense, and medical devices, and is rapidly gaining traction in new fields like artificial intelligence and autonomous systems.

A safety case is more than a single report; it is a living, evolving collection of analyses, justifications, and evidence—tracked and updated as the project progresses. Its core purpose is to communicate, justify, and document all safety-relevant decisions, providing assurance that risks are identified, evaluated, and mitigated to a level that is “as low as reasonably practicable” (ALARP).

Key Concepts and Structure

A safety case combines several foundational elements:

Claims: High-level statements about the system’s safety (e.g., “All hazards are controlled to ALARP”).
Arguments: The logical reasoning connecting evidence to claims (e.g., “All credible hazards have been identified using HAZOP, FMEA, and operational feedback”).
Evidence: Concrete data supporting the argument (e.g., test results, analysis reports, compliance matrices).

This Claims-Arguments-Evidence (CAE) framework is often visualized using Goal Structuring Notation (GSN), a graphical approach that breaks down top-level goals into sub-goals, strategies, solutions (evidence), and contextual elements.

Table: Key Terms in Safety Cases

Term	Definition / Role
Safety Case	Structured argument and evidence for system safety
Safety Case Report	Summary document of arguments and evidence
Claim	High-level assertion about safety
Argument	Rationale linking evidence to claims
Evidence	Data substantiating the argument
GSN	Graphical notation for argument structure
Assurance Case	Argument for critical attributes (e.g., safety, security)
SMS	Systematic approach to managing safety
Pattern	Reusable argument structure
ACP	Point requiring additional assurance in the argument

Objectives and Rationale

The safety case’s primary purpose is to demonstrate, via structured reasoning and supporting evidence, that a system is acceptably safe for its intended use and environment. Key objectives include:

Documenting evidence: Gathering all hazard analyses, design data, test results, and operational experience in an auditable way.
Justifying safety: Clearly showing how risks are identified, evaluated, and mitigated.
Supporting regulatory approval: Meeting the documentation and reasoning requirements of standards bodies and regulators.
Facilitating risk management: Providing a logical framework for tracing and managing hazards throughout the lifecycle.
Assisting knowledge transfer: Ensuring continuity and traceability as teams and organizations evolve.
Enabling continuous improvement: Updating safety reasoning as new risks or mitigations are identified.

Methodology and Patterns

Modern safety cases are built using a hierarchical structure:

Top-Level Safety Claim: E.g., “The aircraft is acceptably safe for passenger transport.”
Intermediate Arguments: Covering hazard identification, risk assessment, and mitigation.
Supporting Evidence: Hazard logs, test results, technical reports, compliance statements.

Safety case patterns (reusable templates) help maintain consistency and efficiency. For example, a Requirements Breakdown Pattern maps system safety requirements to evidence at the component level, while a Hazard-Directed Pattern organizes arguments around identified hazards.

GSN Example:

Argument Structure and Confidence

Safety cases use inductive argumentation, assembling evidence to support claims. The Toulmin Model frames each argument as:

Data/Evidence: Factual basis (test results, analysis)
Claim: Assertion being made
Warrant: Reasoning linking evidence to claim
Backing: Additional support for the warrant
Rebuttal: Known exceptions or weaknesses
Qualifier: Degree of certainty (probability, confidence)

Argument Types

Risk Arguments: Show hazards are identified and risks are ALARP.
Confidence Arguments: Justify the soundness of methods, tools, data, and personnel.
Operational Arguments: Cover ongoing safety in operation, maintenance, and human factors.

Assurance Claim Points (ACPs) are used to flag parts of the argument where additional assurance or evidence is required—such as at interfaces between hardware/software or between development and operation.

Application Domains

Safety cases are essential in:

Aerospace: For aircraft certification and modifications (FAA, EASA, ARP4761/4754A).
Nuclear Power: Licensing and operation of facilities (ONR, SAPs, ALARP).
Rail/Automotive: For new train systems, signaling, and vehicle automation (EN 50126/8/9, ISO 26262).
Medical Devices: Risk management and regulatory submissions (FDA, EMA, ISO 14971).
AI/Autonomous Systems: For high-risk AI, robotics, and autonomous vehicles.

Example: Autonomous Drone Safety Case

Top-Level Claim: “The drone is acceptably safe for controlled airspace.”
Supporting Arguments: Operational boundaries are defined; hazards identified; mitigations and evidence provided (flight data, risk assessment, independent audits).

AI Example:
An AI safety case may include an “inability argument”—e.g., “The AI system cannot perform unauthorized data exfiltration,” supported by design analysis, penetration testing, and formal verification.

Benefits, Pitfalls, and Best Practices

Benefits

Benefit	Description
Clarity	Improves communication among stakeholders.
Traceability	Explicit links from claims to evidence aid audit and change management.
Regulatory Compliance	Meets requirements of authorities (FAA, EASA, ONR, MOD, etc.).
Risk Management	Systematic identification, assessment, and mitigation of risks.
Knowledge Transfer	Supports continuity across teams and organizations.
Efficiency	Patterns/templates boost productivity and reliability.
Assessment	Facilitates independent review and approval.

Common Pitfalls

Pitfall	Description
Claims at Wrong Level	Too broad/narrow claims reduce usefulness.
Wordsmithing	Focusing on wording over substance weakens the argument.
Confirmation Bias	Ignoring weaknesses or contradictory evidence undermines credibility.
Paperwork Exercise	Treating the case as a formality, not a real safety tool.
Lack of Traceability	Unlinked evidence makes review difficult.
Complexity	Overly complex cases are hard to manage.
Outdated Documentation	Not updating the case reduces relevance.

Best Practices

Set claims at the right level.
Use argument patterns and templates.
Separate risk, confidence, and operational arguments.
Document rebuttals and uncertainties.
Update iteratively as the system evolves.
Engage all stakeholders, including independent reviewers.
Structure for efficient external audit.

Graphical and Tabular Representations

GSN Diagram Example (Described):
A GSN diagram starts with the goal “System is acceptably safe,” decomposed into sub-goals for operational contexts (cruise, takeoff, landing), each supported by evidence and linked with context and assumptions.

CAE Table Example:

Claim	Argument	Evidence
Safe in all weather	Operational procedures in place	Procedures, training, simulator test records
Avionics software meets DO-178C	Full verification and validation completed	Test reports, code reviews, coverage analysis

Regulatory and Standards Context

Def Stan 00-056 (UK MOD): Mandates safety case use in defense systems.
ONR Safety Assessment Principles: Define expectations for nuclear safety cases.
ICAO Annex 19, EASA CS-25: Aviation safety management and certification.
IEC 61508, ISO 26262, ISO 14971: Functional safety for industrial, automotive, and medical devices.

Conclusion

A safety case is essential for demonstrating, documenting, and maintaining the safety of complex, high-assurance systems. By providing a logical, evidence-based argument, the safety case not only meets regulatory requirements but also drives best practice in risk management, engineering, and organizational learning.

For organizations aiming for robust safety, compliance, and continuous improvement, investing in a high-quality safety case is not just a regulatory obligation—it is a strategic advantage.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a safety case and why is it important?: A safety case is a structured argument, supported by evidence, that a system is acceptably safe in a defined context. It is critical for demonstrating compliance with regulatory standards, guiding risk management, and providing assurance to stakeholders in high-assurance industries such as aviation, nuclear, rail, and medical devices.
How is a safety case structured?: A safety case typically follows a hierarchical structure: at the top are high-level safety claims, which are broken down into arguments and supported by detailed evidence such as hazard analyses, risk assessments, test results, and operational data. Visual tools like Goal Structuring Notation (GSN) help represent these relationships clearly.
What is the difference between a safety case and an assurance case?: While both use structured arguments to demonstrate that a system meets critical requirements, a safety case specifically addresses safety, whereas an assurance case can cover other attributes such as security, environmental impact, or reliability.
Which industries require safety cases?: Safety cases are mandatory or strongly encouraged in industries where failure can have catastrophic consequences, including aviation, nuclear power, railways, defense, medical devices, and increasingly for high-risk AI systems and autonomous vehicles.
What are common pitfalls in developing safety cases?: Common pitfalls include overly broad or narrow claims, focusing on documentation over substance, confirmation bias, lack of traceability, excessive complexity, and failing to update the case as the system evolves. Adopting best practices and reusable patterns helps avoid these issues.
How does a safety case support regulatory compliance?: Regulators require safety cases as evidence that all credible hazards have been identified, risks have been reduced ALARP, and safety management processes are effective. The safety case becomes the primary deliverable for certification, licensing, or operational approval.

Enhance your system safety and compliance

Discover how robust safety case development can support regulatory approval, risk management, and continuous improvement for your organization. Our experts guide you through every step, from initial hazard analysis to certification.

Learn more

Safety Standard – Required Level of Safety Performance – Standards

Safety standards define minimum technical and procedural requirements to protect people, property, and the environment from risk. Required safety performance sp...

Nov 18, 2025 7 min read

Industrial Safety Risk Assessment +3

Case Study

A case study is a systematic, in-depth examination of a particular instance, event, or phenomenon. In aviation, it is a critical tool for analyzing incidents, i...