## 3 Method to Derive Assessment Templates  
Safety-performance indicators are important in a safety-assessment process. Striking a balance between test representativeness and reliable performance indicators is essential. These indicators encompass many factors that require evaluation, which should strongly reflect the overall vehicle's safety performance. Our thesis asserts that analysing KETs is fundamental to develop practical guidance to evaluate the soundness and comprehensiveness of the ODD and functional scenarios to test automated vehicles. This guidance, in the form of requirement attributes, serves as safety-performance indicators that enable the examination and evaluation of automated vehicle systems. Safety-performance indicators cover various critical aspects and can be categorised as follows:  
1. Indicators of system reliability include assessing the system's failure rate, response time, redundancy, and more. 2. Indicators of safety by design, evaluating hazard identification, safety-critical scenarios, cybersecurity, and safety-feature activation. 3. Indicators of design soundness and coverage of the ODD. 4. Indicators of human-machine interaction, assessing driver engagement, monitoring, and user interface design. 5. Indicators of verification and validation, analysing test coverage, scenario replication, and validation. Figure 2: The envisioned procedural instance of the assessment framework. Functional scenarios related to KETs can be added to the scenario catalogue. Indicators of regulatory compliance, confirming adherence to legal and ethical standards. * Indicators of user perception, evaluating user feedback to understand perceived safety and acceptance. It is important to note that each vehicle-level performance indicator must be further broken down into indicators relevant to the KET under assessment. For instance, if we are assessing the communication technology of the autonomous system, specific indicators related to communication reliability, latency, and data security should be considered. These KET-specific indicators must then be aggregated into a system-level indicator to provide an overarching assessment of the autonomous vehicle's safety performance. This comprehensive approach ensures that the KETs, integral to the vehicle's functionality, are thoroughly evaluated within the broader safety framework. Analysing all major KETs is essential in providing complete guidance to evaluate any use case of automated vehicle systems. We believe this approach should be prioritised regardless of the technologies being analysed. The process of deriving assessment templates can be summarised as follows:  
1. Collect ADS use-case requirements: Engage with stakeholders, including manufacturers, researchers, regulators, and industry experts, to gather their requirements and perspectives. Identify and analyse various use cases to understand technology reliance and testing needs. Assess the reliance of each requirement on KETs. 2. Allocate requirements based on technology reliance: Determine which requirements directly or indirectly depend on specific KETs. Allocate and associate the requirements with the corresponding KET. 3. Derive attributes for the KET category: Derive attributes that capture the essential characteristics of each category. These attributes should primarily reflect safety considerations, but functionality, reliability, and other relevant technological group aspects can also be considered. 4. Establish safety-performance indicators: Based on the derived attributes and safety objectives, establish KET-specific contributions to safety-performance indicators that can be used to assess and measure the safety performance of the automated system. These indicators should provide quantifiable and meaningful measures to evaluate the system's compliance with safety requirements. Create functional scenarios that cover diverse KET-related operational conditions and situations that will be added to the scenario database.