Find it in the documents, not the field.

Machine-speed analysis of technical specifications. Find contradictions, gaps, and duplicates before sign-off.

Aerospace requirements & certification analysis

Certification rework is
budgeted for. It shouldn’t have to be.

DO-178C, ARP4754A, and DO-254 all trace forward from the same source: a requirements baseline split across system, hardware, and software levels, usually written by different teams on different suppliers’ schedules. Wyzer Detective checks that baseline as one document, catching the cross-level contradiction certification review finds late — and expensively.

25–40%
Added cost of DO-178C compliance over a CMMI Level 2–3 baseline1
40%
How far standard effort models underestimate DO-178C certification work, per a peer-reviewed COCOMO II study1
100×
NASA-documented cost multiplier to fix a requirements defect once it reaches operations rather than requirements phase2
1 Visure Solutions, "What is DO-178C?": estimated 25–40% cost premium for DO-178C compliance over a CMMI Level 2–3 baseline, and a COCOMO II study finding standard effort models underestimate DO-178C work by roughly 40%.2 NASA: the cost to fix a defect escalates roughly 100× from requirements to operations.

Where Wyzer Detective fits

Applied to the aerospace requirements you already write, in the review step you already run.

Cross-level traceability gaps

Flags system requirements with no corresponding software or hardware requirement downstream, and software requirements with no traceable system-level parent. Both surface before a certification auditor finds the hole in the traceability matrix.

Supplier-furnished equipment conflicts

When a supplier baseline is integrated into the platform specification, Wyzer checks it against every other package it now sits alongside, not just the interface control document it was written to.

Ambiguity scoring against certification objectives

Requirements that pass a checklist for existence and still fail a DO-178C objective for verifiability: vague qualifiers, missing tolerances, acceptance criteria nothing can measure. Flagged before a stage-of-involvement audit.

Duplicate and near-duplicate detection

Large platform specifications accumulate requirements re-stated with small wording differences across revisions. Wyzer finds the near-duplicates that inflate verification effort without adding coverage.

Standards & frameworks

Wyzer Detective doesn’t replace the process — it checks the requirement set the process depends on.

DO-178C (Airborne Software)DO-254 (Airborne Hardware)ARP4754A (System Development)S1000DReqIF

A representative example

A Level A avionics baseline with roughly 12,000 system and software requirements, integrated from four supplier-furnished packages. Each package is internally consistent, because each supplier reviewed their own. Two of them then define conflicting timing tolerances for the same shared bus message, which stays invisible until somebody reads both documents side by side. Wyzer Detective does that on the integrated baseline at every revision.

The example above illustrates the class of defect Wyzer Detective catches — it is not a specific customer engagement.

Frequently asked questions

See it on your own specification

Export a ReqIF baseline and get a full Wyzer Detective analysis — quality scores, contradictions, and coverage gaps — within minutes.

← Back to all industries