ASIL E Is Not the Point. The No-Human-Fallback Safety Case Is.

Abstract: ASIL E is not a published standard. Its real value is not the name of a higher integrity level, but the question it forces Level 4 and Level 5 autonomous-driving safety arguments to answer: when there is no human fallback, can the safety case still credit a human controller? For me, the useful translation is not “ASIL E compliance.” It is a no-human-fallback review lens, four evidence fields in ADSafetyPilot, and a feedback loop connecting ROAM, DRIVEResearch, and a field-monitoring-backed safety case. ...

June 3, 2026 · 12 min · 2475 words · 张玉新 Yuxin Zhang · 0

When the Robotaxi Fails, Who Catches It?

Abstract: When the AI in a driverless car can’t handle the situation, does the industry have a coherent emergency-management playbook? It doesn’t — and worse, no reference standard exists. Starting from the March 31, 2026 Wuhan Apollo Go incident, this post walks through three recent body blows to the Robotaxi industry, scans every gap in the ISO / SAE / IEC / China standards landscape on remote operations, traces the fundamental regulatory pivot after Wuhan, and introduces ROAM (Remote Operations & Anomaly Management) — an open-source reference architecture with four modules, ten future operating models, and a 52-standard scan that confirms the void. ...

May 4, 2026 · 8 min · 1700 words · 张玉新 Yuxin Zhang · 0