A DVP&R (Design Verification Plan and Report) is the primary document governing a product’s design verification program. The Plan section defines every verification activity required to confirm that the design meets its requirements: the requirement being verified, the test or analysis method, the test level (component, sub-system, system), the acceptance criteria, the quantity of samples, the responsible engineer, and the planned completion date. The Report section records the actual test and analysis results against each planned activity: test or analysis completion date, actual results, pass or fail status, and the reference to the supporting test report or analysis report. EMUG manages DVP&R as a live document throughout the design program — tracking completion progress against the plan, escalating gaps and delays, and assembling the final closed DVP&R as a primary element of the design verification evidence package.
The AIAG-VDA DFMEA Handbook (2019) introduced several significant changes from the AIAG 4th Edition FMEA approach. The most significant is the replacement of RPN (Risk Priority Number) — the product of Severity, Occurrence, and Detection ratings — with AP (Action Priority), which uses a priority table rather than a simple multiplication to classify risk as High, Medium, or Low. The 2019 methodology also introduced a more structured seven-step process: planning and preparation, structure analysis, function analysis, failure analysis, risk analysis, optimization, and results documentation. The structure and function analysis steps are new — requiring a systematic decomposition of the product structure and function before failure modes are identified, producing a more rigorous and consistent failure mode identification than the previous approach. EMUG facilitates DFMEA using AIAG-VDA 2019 methodology as the standard, and can facilitate using regional variants where customer requirements specify.
ISO 26262 (Road vehicles functional safety) requires verification activities at each development level (system, hardware, software) for functions assigned an ASIL (Automotive Safety Integrity Level) rating. EMUG supports ISO 26262 verification planning by identifying which product functions require ASIL classification, determining the ASIL level from the hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA), and planning the verification activities required at each ASIL level. For ASIL A and B, this includes requirements-based testing, structural coverage analysis, and design inspection. For ASIL C and D, additional activities include fault injection testing, formal verification methods, and independence requirements for verification activities. EMUG prepares the ISO 26262 safety case elements for the functional safety verification evidence and connects ISO 26262 verification requirements to the overall DVP&R structure.
Requirements traceability is the documented connection from each requirement to the verification evidence that confirms it is met — and in the reverse direction, from each piece of verification evidence to the requirement it covers. Regulatory authorities (EASA, FAA, TUV, IATF assessors) and customer quality teams reviewing a design verification package need to be able to answer two questions: for every requirement, is there a test or analysis that confirms compliance? And for every test or analysis, does it map to a requirement that justifies it? Without a maintained requirements traceability matrix, the answer to both questions requires manually searching through hundreds of test reports and specifications — which takes days and reliably produces findings of missed requirements or unexplained tests. EMUG’s RTM development provides this traceability structure from the start of the verification program, making regulatory submission review a matrix lookup rather than a manual search.
Test anomalies — results that do not meet the defined pass-fail criteria — are managed through a structured disposition process in EMUG DV&V programs. Each anomaly is documented with: test item identity and revision, test condition at the time of anomaly, observed result versus acceptance criterion, and initial classification (test setup issue, specification interpretation, or potential design deficiency). For test setup issues (incorrect sample, wrong test condition), the test is repeated and the anomaly closed. For specification interpretation differences, the requirement is reviewed with the design engineering team and the pass-fail criterion is confirmed or revised. For design deficiencies, a formal engineering change is initiated, the corrective action is tracked to closure, and the test is repeated on a post-change sample. All anomaly records are maintained as part of the formal test evidence package.
Similarity justification is acceptable as verification evidence when the design being verified is demonstrably equivalent to an already-verified design in all respects that affect the requirement being verified. The justification must document: the previously verified reference design identity and verification evidence reference, the differences between the reference and new design, engineering analysis confirming that the differences do not affect the requirement under consideration, and the boundary conditions within which the similarity claim is valid. Regulatory authorities (EASA, FAA) apply a technical judgement test: would a qualified engineer consider the designs similar enough that re-testing provides no additional safety information? EMUG prepares similarity justification documents that pre-empt the objections that regulatory reviewers typically raise — addressing material differences, manufacturing process differences, and operating condition differences explicitly in the justification.
DVP&R verification and production control plans address different phases of the product lifecycle: DVP&R covers design verification (confirming the design is correct), while the control plan covers production quality (confirming that each production unit is made correctly). EMUG connects them by using DFMEA as the bridge: failure causes identified in the DFMEA inform both design verification tests (detection controls that confirm the design prevents the failure cause) and production control plan entries (process controls that detect the failure cause if it occurs in production). This ensures that the risk management insight from the DFMEA is implemented consistently in both the DVP&R test program and the production control plan — and that there are no failure causes in the DFMEA without control evidence in at least one of the two documents.
EMUG delivers design verification and validation to automotive OEMs and Tier 1 suppliers (IATF 16949, AIAG-VDA, ISO 26262), aerospace and defense organizations (AS9100, EASA, FAA, DO-178C, DO-254), industrial machinery manufacturers (EU Machinery Directive, EN 13849, PED), energy and oil and gas companies (ASME, IEC 61511, DNV), and engineering services firms. Delivery countries include Germany, France, UK, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, Bahrain, India, China, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, and Kenya.
