---

In brief

The easy coverage evidence is the evidence you already have. What a certification review actually argues about is the level where instrumentation stops being practical - and an argument is exactly what the measurement below replaces.

Why unit-level numbers do not carry it

Two coverage reports can both show 80 % branch coverage - one from unit tests on a host, one from system tests on the target - and they are not interchangeable. Unit tests provide controlled, detailed evidence about isolated software; integration tests provide evidence about interactions, configuration, scheduling and hardware. Conventional source instrumentation usually measures a separately built executable, which leaves a representativeness argument between the measured artifact and the executable delivered to the customer.

What the measurement gives you

• The optimized executable under test - in passive mode, the binary you ship. Trace analysis inserts no coverage counters, logging calls or measurement runtime into the application instruction stream.
• MC/DC evidence that survives optimization. Where the required source outcomes are not recoverable from the optimized object control flow, CEDARtools.Anchor adds explicit observation anchors and reports their effect separately.
• Honest classification. Each obligation is reported as observed, not observed, supplemented, unresolved, deactivated, or excluded with justification - trace loss and mapping ambiguity are not converted into an ordinary uncovered result.

The peer-reviewed basis

The argument on this page is not only ours. It is set out in Achieving Complete Structural Test Coverage in Embedded Systems Using Trace-Based Monitoring, presented at DX 2024 and published open access in OASIcs Vol. 125 - written with HEICON and the University of Lübeck. The paper names the MC/DC-under-optimization gap explicitly instead of working around it.

All papers and publications

One report across test levels

Unit-level coverage from TESSY and integration-level coverage from the trace merge into one view (Hyper Coverage), with the origin of each verdict preserved - so the report says which level established what.

Tool qualification

Integration evidence usually feeds a certification argument, and that argument often needs qualification evidence for the tools involved - tool qualification data under DO-330, a tool confidence level argument under ISO 26262. If you are interested in a tool qualification kit for CEDARtools.Coverage in your integration-evidence workflow, contact our support - we will discuss scope and certification context with you.

The product in full · The technology in detail · Target support, answered per configuration