RECORDED WEBINAR<\/h6><\/div>Software formal verification in the context of CENELEC EN 50716: from model to sign-off verification<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>As rail control software gets more complex, the real challenge is to ensure that implementations meet safety and functional requirements efficiently and convincingly. EN\u202f50716 (the successor to EN\u202f50128\/EN\u202f50657) sets the software development and verification expectations for railway applications, clarifying how formal methods and tool qualification contribute to a robust safety case. This session takes a practitioner\u2019s view of applying that framework to real systems and on\u2011board functions.<\/span><\/p>\nWe\u2019ll walk through a repeatable assurance workflow: capture requirements as verifiable properties, model behavior in HLL and its sequential extension sHLL, use model checking to explore relevant executions, and establish auditable conformity between specification and implementation. We\u2019ll illustrate the approach using Prover\u2019s toolchain (HLL\/sHLL, Prover PSL, Prover Certifier) to make the approach concrete, while maintaining the emphasis on methods, evidence, and governance that can be adopted in any environment.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>Agenda:<\/h5><\/div>- <\/i><\/span>\n
EN\u202f50716 in practice. What changed from EN 50128\/EN 50657, specifically regarding the role of formal methods within the lifecycle, and what auditors expect in terms of tool classification and evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
A pragmatic formal\u2011assurance workflow. From property\u2011driven requirements to HLL\/sHLL models, Prover PSL model\u2011checking, traceability, and preparation of sign\u2011off evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
Software conformity by proof. How proof\u2011producing sign\u2011off with a T2\u2011qualified engine (e.g., Prover Certifier) demonstrates alignment between specification and implementation for SIL\u2011classed applications.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
Quality & efficiency gains. Ways to shorten verification cycles, raise coverage beyond testing, and catch defects earlier\u2014without disrupting your current development process.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div><\/div>![](\"https:\/\/www.prover.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Webinar6_Software-formal-verification-in-the-context-of-Cenelec-50716-scaled.jpg\" "\\"Webinar6_Software")
<\/span><\/div>Yes please, send me the recording!<\/h4><\/div>
Software formal verification in the context of CENELEC EN 50716: from model to sign-off verification<\/h1><\/div><\/div><\/div>As rail control software gets more complex, the real challenge is to ensure that implementations meet safety and functional requirements efficiently and convincingly. EN\u202f50716 (the successor to EN\u202f50128\/EN\u202f50657) sets the software development and verification expectations for railway applications, clarifying how formal methods and tool qualification contribute to a robust safety case. This session takes a practitioner\u2019s view of applying that framework to real systems and on\u2011board functions.<\/span><\/p>\nWe\u2019ll walk through a repeatable assurance workflow: capture requirements as verifiable properties, model behavior in HLL and its sequential extension sHLL, use model checking to explore relevant executions, and establish auditable conformity between specification and implementation. We\u2019ll illustrate the approach using Prover\u2019s toolchain (HLL\/sHLL, Prover PSL, Prover Certifier) to make the approach concrete, while maintaining the emphasis on methods, evidence, and governance that can be adopted in any environment.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>Agenda:<\/h5><\/div>- <\/i><\/span>\n
EN\u202f50716 in practice. What changed from EN 50128\/EN 50657, specifically regarding the role of formal methods within the lifecycle, and what auditors expect in terms of tool classification and evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
A pragmatic formal\u2011assurance workflow. From property\u2011driven requirements to HLL\/sHLL models, Prover PSL model\u2011checking, traceability, and preparation of sign\u2011off evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
Software conformity by proof. How proof\u2011producing sign\u2011off with a T2\u2011qualified engine (e.g., Prover Certifier) demonstrates alignment between specification and implementation for SIL\u2011classed applications.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li>- <\/i><\/span>\n
Quality & efficiency gains. Ways to shorten verification cycles, raise coverage beyond testing, and catch defects earlier\u2014without disrupting your current development process.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div><\/div><\/span><\/div>Yes please, send me the recording!<\/h4><\/div>
As rail control software gets more complex, the real challenge is to ensure that implementations meet safety and functional requirements efficiently and convincingly. EN\u202f50716 (the successor to EN\u202f50128\/EN\u202f50657) sets the software development and verification expectations for railway applications, clarifying how formal methods and tool qualification contribute to a robust safety case. This session takes a practitioner\u2019s view of applying that framework to real systems and on\u2011board functions.<\/span><\/p>\n We\u2019ll walk through a repeatable assurance workflow: capture requirements as verifiable properties, model behavior in HLL and its sequential extension sHLL, use model checking to explore relevant executions, and establish auditable conformity between specification and implementation. We\u2019ll illustrate the approach using Prover\u2019s toolchain (HLL\/sHLL, Prover PSL, Prover Certifier) to make the approach concrete, while maintaining the emphasis on methods, evidence, and governance that can be adopted in any environment.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div> EN\u202f50716 in practice. What changed from EN 50128\/EN 50657, specifically regarding the role of formal methods within the lifecycle, and what auditors expect in terms of tool classification and evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li> A pragmatic formal\u2011assurance workflow. From property\u2011driven requirements to HLL\/sHLL models, Prover PSL model\u2011checking, traceability, and preparation of sign\u2011off evidence.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li> Software conformity by proof. How proof\u2011producing sign\u2011off with a T2\u2011qualified engine (e.g., Prover Certifier) demonstrates alignment between specification and implementation for SIL\u2011classed applications.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li> Quality & efficiency gains. Ways to shorten verification cycles, raise coverage beyond testing, and catch defects earlier\u2014without disrupting your current development process.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div><\/li><\/ul><\/div><\/div>Agenda:<\/h5><\/div>
<\/span><\/div>Yes please, send me the recording!<\/h4><\/div>