Find it in the documents, not the field.

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

Automotive requirements & specification analysis

Software is now the
leading cause of automotive recalls.

Specifications for ADAS, powertrain and body-control software now run to tens of thousands of requirements, written by different systems teams on different suppliers' schedules. Wyzer Detective is the automotive requirements checker that reads all of it at once, cross-referencing every requirement against every other. That last part is what a section-by-section review structurally cannot do, however careful its reviewers are.

8.19M
Vehicles recalled for software or electronics defects in 2025 — the single largest recall category1
94
Recalls issued by one OEM in 2025 alone, a single-year record for any automaker1
$2.5B
Recall costs at that OEM across 2024–20251
87%
Cheaper to fix a defect over the air before shipping than through a physical recall2
1 Forbes, "Auto Software Recalls Approach Record For 6th Straight Year": 119 NHTSA campaigns covered 8,192,000 vehicles in 2025 for software/electronics defects; one OEM issued 94 recalls in 2025 (a single-year record) with recall costs over $2.5B, 2024–2025.2 Mender.io, citing Harman Automotive: average recall cost ~$500 per vehicle vs. ~$66.50 per vehicle for an over-the-air software fix.3 Eclipse Foundation, S-CORE (Safe Open Vehicle Core) requirements corpus, Apache-2.0 licensed: 553 requirements converted to ReqIF, 279 of them rated ASIL B under ISO 26262. Processed by Wyzer's ingest pipeline for internal validation.4 Internal Wyzer pipeline data from an analysis of the public VIWI (Volkswagen Infotainment Web Interface) protocol specification, a W3C member submission — 535 requirement statements. Of 521 flags the rule engine raised, Sherlock's verification layer cleared 345 (66%) as false positives, surfacing 176 for review.5 InsideEVs / TechCrunch: CARIAD (Volkswagen Group's software subsidiary) recorded over $7.5B in operating losses 2022–2024 (over €2B in the first nine months of 2024 alone); the Porsche Macan Electric and Audi Q6 e-tron launches were delayed roughly a year over CARIAD software; Volkswagen has since paid Rivian $5.8B for EV software platform access, and in October 2025 confirmed CARIAD will stop building its own software and integrate external partners instead.6 CBT News / Interesting Engineering: Ford cancelled its FNV4 unified vehicle-software architecture programme after Ford's EV and software division posted $4.7B (2023) and $5B (2024) in losses. Ford's own explanation for the technical failure: every supplier that builds a component also supplies its own software for it, and those supplier-authored specifications were never fully reconciled against each other before integration.7 Nasdaq / TipRanks: Stellantis recalled 1.46 million Ram trucks for a software-related defect and 211,581 trucks/SUVs for a software fault that disabled electronic stability control after an ABS defect; cumulative Stellantis recall costs have run to roughly $951M since 2023.

What these failures cost

Every programme below is publicly reported, at costs its owner disclosed. Reporting on them keeps returning to the same root cause.

Volkswagen Group / CARIAD$7.5B+ in software losses, 2022–2024

CARIAD delayed the Porsche Macan Electric and Audi Q6 e-tron launches by roughly a year, then Volkswagen paid Rivian $5.8B for the EV software platform CARIAD couldn't deliver. Reporting on the failure keeps landing on the same root cause: software specifications authored independently across VW, Audi, and Porsche that were never reconciled before integration.5

Ford (FNV4)$10B in losses before the programme was scrapped

Ford's FNV4 electrical architecture — meant to unify vehicle software the way Tesla's does — was cancelled after contributing to billions in losses at Ford's EV and software division. Ford's own explanation: every supplier that builds a component also supplies its own software for it, and nobody was checking those supplier-authored specifications against each other before they shipped.6

Stellantis1.46M vehicles recalled over a software defect

A software-related defect triggered a 1.46-million-vehicle Ram truck recall, on top of a separate recall of 211,581 trucks and SUVs where a software fault disabled electronic stability control after an ABS defect. Cumulative Stellantis recall costs have run to roughly $951M since 2023 — the bill a cross-supplier specification conflict generates once it reaches the field instead of a review.7

Tested on real automotive specifications

Both figures below come from published specifications anyone can go and read: the VIWI infotainment protocol, submitted to the W3C, and Eclipse S-CORE, the Apache-2.0 licensed safety platform. Nothing here is a synthetic example.

553
Requirements in the Eclipse S-CORE open-source safety platform Wyzer has processed end to end — 279 of them ISO 26262 ASIL B-rated3
66%
Share of a rule engine's initial flags on a real automotive protocol spec that Sherlock's verification layer cleared as false positives before a reviewer ever saw them4

Where Wyzer Detective fits

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

Cross-domain contradiction detection

The body-control and powertrain sections can each read correctly on their own and still specify incompatible behaviour for the same signal. Wyzer reads the specification as one document rather than one section at a time, and flags where the two disagree.

ASPICE traceability gaps

Coverage analysis against the work products an ASPICE assessment expects, so requirements with no downstream test case or design element surface before an assessor reaches them.

ISO 26262 completeness checks

Flags safety requirements that are present but under-specified: no measurable acceptance value, no stated tolerance, no clear safe state. That is the ambiguity a functional safety assessment rejects.

Supplier baseline conflict detection

When a Tier 1 baseline is re-issued, Wyzer diffs it against the OEM master specification for new contradictions introduced in that revision, not just what changed.

Standards & frameworks

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

ISO 26262 (Functional Safety)Automotive SPICEUNECE R155 / R156AUTOSARReqIF

A representative example

A 30,000-requirement ADAS specification, split across twelve supplier-facing modules written by different systems teams. No single reviewer reads all twelve end to end before sign-off. Two modules define the same sensor-degradation fallback behaviour, worded differently enough that neither review recognises them as one requirement. Integration testing finds it instead, once both implementations exist and disagree. Wyzer Detective reads the whole baseline in one pass, so that conflict surfaces while it is still a review comment.

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