M45
The alignment infrastructure for engineering

Intent, requirements,design, verification.Aligned.

Engineering reasoning on safety-critical programs spreads across tools, artifacts, and teams.

M45 holds the thread together.AI infers. Engineers decide.

Talk to the founder
FMS-700/Hazard Review
Saved · 2m ago

Hazard Review · HRV-024

Unmitigated Hazard Condition

High

Requirements

All pass
SYS-041Autopilot shall disengage when airspeed data is invalid
SYS-042System shall alert pilot on disengagement
SYS-043Manual control shall always be available

Inferred Intent

“These requirements exist because a loss of autopilot or corrupt sensor data must never leave the pilot without clear awareness of the control state and immediate ability to take over manually.”

Coverage Gap

All three requirements pass. But no requirement ensures the pilot is informed that airspeed data is unreliable after disengagement. The pilot is left manually flying on the same bad airspeed that triggered the disconnect.

Open findingAdd requirement

Hazard Review. A coverage gap surfaced before certification review.

“You should be able to walk away from your requirements, and somebody else should be able to pick them up and recreate the design. Most designs today do not meet that criterion.”
Systems engineer, aircraft OEM
“The certification authority wants to know, ‘How have you done that? Why have you traded off this thing for that thing? Why have you made that decision?’ But tracking down this evidence is actually very difficult.”
Systems engineer, defense aerospace
The Problem

Tools hold artifacts.
Nobody holds the thread from intent through verification.

Intent in a slide deck. Requirements in DOORS. Tasks in Jira. Decisions in someone's inbox.

Reasoning gets dropped at every handoff. Quietly, incrementally, across tiers and teams and months. By the time the gap surfaces, it means rework, program slip, or a finding you cannot easily close.

“A shocking amount comes from PowerPoint. PowerPoint engineering has become a bad habit.”
Systems engineer, aircraft OEM
“At a certain point, it was about 80% just paperwork and 20% progress.”
Systems engineer, aerospace startup

Cost to fix misalignment at each stage

1×10×100×1000×
Intent / Concept
Requirements
Implementation
Operations

M45 surfaces misalignment at the intent and requirements stages, where it costs 1–10× to fix, not 100–1000×.

M45 reads your artifacts. Infers the structure. Watches for breaks.

And it works in both directions: inward across your own engineering artifacts, outward toward the regulatory environment you still have to answer to.

From scattered artifacts to shared engineering context

M45 reconstructs the engineering model behind your artifacts. Every requirement, design fragment, and rationale note is treated as a partial view of the same underlying system. M45 builds a candidate model from those views and shows you where the pieces line up and where they don't.

It infers functions, components, scenarios, constraints, and traceability links from requirement files, design fragments, and rationale.

FMS-700/Engineering Context
Saved · 5m ago

Engineering Context · ENGCTX-001

Reconstructed engineering model

Functions, components, constraints, and traceability inferred from imported artifacts

Functions

6 inferred

Components

9 mapped

Constraints

14 extracted

Traceability

47 anchored

Imported artifacts

System requirements (ReqIF)

142 requirements

Subsystem spec v2.3 (PDF)

38 pages extracted

Architecture knowledge base (TTL)

316 triples summarized

Retained Slack thread

24 decision fragments

Inferred structure

Navigation integrityCrew alertingMode transition controlSensor cross-checkingRedundancy managementDegraded mode handling

Source traceability

Protected mode activation

Req 44, 45 + safety note A-12

Inspect

Crew alerting after transition

Req 61 + hazard review H-03

Inspect

Engineering context. What M45 infers from your imported artifacts.

How M45 reconstructs intent →What is system intent →Intent and engineering artifacts →

AI infers. Engineers decide.

In intent review, M45 generates hypotheses about what the requirements mean, surfaces exceptions where intent and artifacts disagree, and proposes recommendations.

Engineers accept, reject, defer, or refine each finding. Every inference links back to its source artifacts, so every judgment is verifiable.

FMS-700/Intent Review
Saved · 3m ago

Intent Review · IR-024

Review cycle for FMS-700

Hypotheses, exceptions, and recommendations awaiting engineer decision

Hypotheses

18

Exceptions

7

Recommendations

12

Decided

14 of 37

Review unitStatusAction
Navigation integrityException openInspect
Crew alerting behaviorHypothesis readyReview
Protected mode transitionsRecommendation readyDecide
Sensor cross-checkingDecidedView

Alignment exception

“Crew alerting behavior” has an inferred intent for post-transition alerts, but no explicit requirement covers alert behavior after protected mode activation.

AcceptRefineDefer

Intent Review. Hypotheses, exceptions, and recommendations for engineer decision.

Worked example: inference and alignment →Ownership and accountability →

Ask the authorities in plain language. Get cited answers. Save them to the project.

Each answer is structured by authority, with citations and escalation guidance. Save the answer or the full chat into the project record.

Regulatory research becomes part of the program, not a separate thread.

FMS-700/Regulatory Intelligence
Linked to FMS-700 certification basis

We are changing avionics on a legacy aircraft under EASA DOA. Can prior compliance evidence be reused, and what would likely require authority coordination?

Research workflow2 authorities · 14 surfaced sources
Expand

Overall answer

Prior compliance evidence may be reusable if the certification basis, installation assumptions, and failure-impact context remain materially comparable. Changed interfaces or altered safety effects usually require fresh justification and likely coordination.faa.goveasa.europa.eu

EASA

Reuse can be argued if applicability is demonstrated and assumptions still hold.

easa.europa.eu

FAA

Changed-product and installation impact determine whether prior evidence remains acceptable.

faa.gov

Applicability

  • Reuse of accepted evidence for comparable installations
  • Authority-specific expectations for changed assumptions

Escalation

  • Compare assumptions against prior approval package
  • Escalate authority contact if interfaces changed
Save answerSave chatSaved into linked project

Describe the certification situation, and select one or more authorities.

EASAFAA
↑

Regulatory Intelligence. Authority-cited answers, saved back into project context.

Regulatory intelligence assistant →
How It Works

The M45 Platform

Engineering information is uploaded or connected to a project. M45 prepares it into a shared engineering context. Workflows run on top. Engineers decide.

Currently in development with early design partners.

Live

Upload

Engineering information from project artifacts

RequirementsSpecificationsOntologiesRationaleStandardsRegulationsSafety AnalysesTest Evidence

Connect

Linked systems and retained records

SlackDOORSPLMCATIASharePointTest Tools
Live

Shared Engineering Context

Prepared project context connecting files, models, messages, and decisions

Source ArtifactsRequirementsExtracted TextKnowledge GraphsSlack DecisionsTraceability LinksSafety ArgumentsRationaleChange History
How it works →

Workflows

Every workflow is human-gated. Nothing ships without engineer approval.

Live

Requirements Architecture Review

Requirements Architecture Review reconstructs the system architecture behind your ReqIFs. Every requirement is treated as a partial view of the same underlying system. It builds a candidate architecture from those views and shows you how the pieces fit: agreements, conflicts, gaps, and overreach.

Live

Regulatory Intelligence

Regulatory material is scattered across authorities, document types, and versions, and it changes constantly. Regulatory Intelligence gives you structured, cross-authority views on what applies to your specific program.

Learn more →

On the roadmap

Requirements Decomposition

Lower-tier requirements need to trace back to system-level intent and preserve safety context. That traceability is easy to lose when you're authoring across tiers. This workflow keeps those connections intact as you decompose.

Compliance Scout

DO-178C, ARP4754A, and MIL-STD-882 define hundreds of objectives. Compliance Scout maps your artifacts against those objectives and surfaces gaps before formal review.

Safety Case Assembly

Safety cases require connecting STPA analyses, requirements, and structured arguments across tools and teams. Safety Case Assembly builds those connections systematically, so you're not manually chasing links at the end of a program.

Vendor Validation

When artifacts cross organizational boundaries, intent gets lost: different terminology, different assumptions, different structures. Vendor Validation surfaces those gaps, whether you're reviewing a supplier deliverable or preparing to submit one.

Workflow outputs

ReqIFSysML v2GSN Safety CasesMOC TablesCompliance Packages
For Early Partners

More paperwork than engineering?

We are working with a small number of early design partners: direct roadmap input, early access, built around your programs. Let's talk.

Talk to the founderDocumentation →