The 19th Automated Driving Systems session in Shanghai (February 2026) involved approximately 90 participants from multiple countries and organizations. Key outcomes included adoption of amendments to UNR and GTR on ADS, addressing EDR/DSSAD definitions and recording intervals, and reviewing Guidance and Interpretation Document sections covering introduction, DDT performance, audit, user interaction, approval, FADS, safety case, testing, and ISMR. Outstanding items for resolution include remote assistance prioritization and future work program definition. Amendments will be submitted to WP.29 in June 2026. Future meetings scheduled for April-May in Bangkok and July in Brussels.

The 20th ADS informal working group session and 17th GRVA Workshop on Automated Driving Systems will meet during 27 April-1 May 2026. The session will address proposals to amend the draft Guidance and Interpretation Document covering definitions, performance of the DDT, scope, application for approval, general requirements, interactions between the ADS and its user(s), safety management systems, post-deployment safety, test environments, and certificate of compliance. Additional agenda items include further development of the GTR and UNR and consideration of next steps and future meetings.

This document consolidates inputs from Officers of Principal Interest (OPI) on the Automated Driving Systems (ADS) Guidance and Interpretation Document and organizes content into regulatory text, guidance, comments, and examples to facilitate April-May 2026 Workshop discussions. The document provides interpretation of UN Global Technical Regulation and UN Regulation requirements on ADS, addressing safety performance of the Dynamic Driving Task in nominal, critical, and failure situations; interactions between ADS and users; post-deployment safety monitoring through Safety Performance Indicators; Safety Management System audit criteria; and simulation credibility frameworks for verification and validation, while emphasizing that guidance does not introduce new requirements and that the Regulations remain the sole authoritative texts under 1958 and 1998 Agreements.

Proposal to amend ADS-20-12 (consolidated guidance document). The terms faults, malfunctions, and abnormalities lack distinct meanings in requirement 6.1.4.2. The revised explanation clarifies that “faults, malfunctions, and abnormalities” do not have specific distinct meanings and cover any failure in the ADS’ capability to perform the DDT within the ODD. The three kinds of issues encompassed are warning signals from other systems, faults without warning signals a driver would perceive, and faults within the ADS itself.

Proposal to amend ADS-20-12 (consolidated guidance document). The ADS shall have strategies to detect and respond to instructions from road safety agents. For ADSF-1, this allows transfer of control to the fallback user. Manufacturers may use non-ADS strategies including remote intervention or permitting the road safety agent to drive. Examples of instructions include pull over, give way, stop after collision, move out of way, avoid specific road, and not overtake. Instructions may be issued via lights, sirens, audio messages, written signs, or light bar messages.

Proposals for a new GTR and UNR pending before WP.29 in June are based on texts approved by GRVA in January plus text in brackets from EDR/DSSAD and ADS IWG February sessions (presented to WP.29 in WP.29-198-07 and WP.29-198-09). The IWG must send a proposal to GRVA to remove brackets. OPI materials (ADS-20-03 to ADS-20-11) have been consolidated into ADS-20-12/Rev.2 for review to inform structuring of the Guidance and Interpretation Document on ADS. Session discussions address harmonization, compliance, and preparation for July submission.

Proposal to clarify section 6.1.2.1 regarding crash causation. During approval process, when collisions involve the ADS during the manufacturer’s real-world or confirmatory testing, a root cause analysis is required and an explanation provided. Where the ADS is determined to have played a role in causation, the manufacturer will provide evidence of how related causal factors have been addressed in the final ADS prior to approval. Post-deployment collisions are covered by the ISMR process taking into account the applicable law of the country in which the collision occurred.

Proposal to revise the explanation for para. 8.3.3.1 to clarify the relationship between assessment of the manufacturer’s testing under 8.3.2 and confirmatory testing. The revision adds language specifying that during assessment, the assessor can determine the need for additional scenarios or variations and shall convey this information to the manufacturer requesting additional test evidence under agreed upon protocols. The revision changes “trustworthy” to “accurate” and specifies that confirmatory testing verifies the accuracy of the manufacturer’s testing, with the exception of real-world testing that cannot be precisely replicated.

The Informal Working Group on Automated Driving Systems identified topics for future consideration organized into four lists: items not addressed in original versions of the GTR/UNR; existing items requiring amendment or improvement; items relating to operational implementation; and other items. List 1 includes remote assistance, ODD description taxonomy, external human-machine interface provisions, and connectivity considerations. List 2 includes ADS to ADAS transitions, Data Storage Systems for Automated Driving, ADS deactivation, in-service monitoring and reporting, and safety case requirements. List 3 addresses interpretation document improvements, mutual recognition provisions review, system updates and thresholds, and practical implementation of in-service monitoring. List 4 includes text streamlining to remove duplication and improve clarity.

Proposal to revise explanation of Annex 3 in the draft guidance document. The change proposes language clarifying that performance issues constitute an unreasonable risk to safety only when deviations, degradations, or limitations in ADS capabilities, based on analysis of their frequency and severity, present an unreasonable risk within the declared ODD. The revision specifies that listed factors are examples for consideration in determining whether an unreasonable risk exists but do not necessarily constitute such a risk themselves.

Proposal to delete from the interpretation of failures to meet ADS requirements under para. 6 in Annex 3 the items “Collisions” and “Deviation from Remote Interaction/Intervention as described in the Safety case,” as these are not ADS requirements under para. 6, and collisions are otherwise reportable under the critical occurrences criterion.

Proposal to insert provisions clarifying that when assessing manufacturer’s testing activities under paras. 8.3.2.1.1, 8.3.2.1.2, 8.3.2.2.2, and 8.3.2.2.3, the approval authority or designated technical service may identify situations or scenarios not included in manufacturer’s test evidence, convey that information to the manufacturer, and request additional test evidence covering those situations or scenarios under agreed upon protocols, with the assessor able to determine the need for variations to tested scenarios or conditions to verify that the manufacturer’s evidence is representative and able to support the safety case, where variations may include adjustments to initial conditions, parameter ranges, or environmental assumptions within the bounds or at the boundaries of the declared ODD but may also consider behaviour at ODD exit or outside the ODD, with such variations expected to be reasonable and compatible with the limitations and abilities of the toolchains and allow comparison with initial results provided by the manufacturer or be assessable against the expected behaviour of the system.

Proposal to clarify MRC for ADSF-2 in para. 6.1.5.4.1. The revised text corrects the assertion that ADSF-2 features can meet a lower standard for MRC because of fallback user presence in ADSF-1. It clarifies that ADSF-2 features do not include an ADS fallback response requiring a fallback user, though such features may be present in vehicles with human users. Both ADSF-1 and ADSF-2 features must aim to bring the ADS vehicle to a stop in a safe location complying with traffic rules following ODD exit.

This document presents the status of the Guidance and Interpretation document for UN Regulation and GTR ADS, submitted by the OPI on ISMR provisions. It outlines closed topics including clarification on EDR trigger for critical occurrence, confidentiality and publication of information, and guidance on short-term, periodic templates and SPIs. Ongoing work addresses guidance on occurrences with examples of situations and metrics for ADS operation outside its ODD, and guidance for development of scenarios derived from ISMR activities.

Proposal to revise Annex 3, item 2 regarding “ADS failure to achieve a mitigated risk condition when necessary.” The revised text maintains the four bullet points describing when such occurrence is expected to be reported when an MRC is required. The rationale states the regulatory text does not require reporting when an MRC is achieved but in an unsafe stop location, which is not defined in the regulation, nor when an MRC is achieved but conflicts occur during the MRC.

The change request seeks to amend the road-safety agent Instructions explanation to indicate that examples regarding road safety agent instructions to the ADS vehicle are territory-based. The revision adds the phrase “which depending on the country of operation” to both the list of example instructions and the statement regarding communication methods, clarifying that instructions from road safety agents vary from country to country.

This change request proposes to amend the explanatory text for para. 6.1.2.11. (UNR)/4.1.2.11. (GTR) by modifying the phrase “the ADS is always responsible for detecting them” to “the ADS is always responsible for detecting and responding to them” and by deleting two “remote intervention” examples of non-ADS strategies. The rationale states that the ADS is responsible for both detection and response to instructions from road safety agents, and that remote intervention examples should be avoided at the current stage as this topic is already under discussion in Phase Two.

Proposal to amend para. 6.1.2.5 (UNR)/4.1.2.5 (GTR) to clarify that the ADS is always responsible for detecting and responding to priority vehicles, and to delete the examples of non-ADS strategies involving remote intervention.

The revised text adds ISO 21448, GB/T 34590 Road vehicles-Functional safety, and GB/T 43267 Road vehicles – Safety of the intended functionality to the original reference standards ISO 26262-2/8:2028 and ISO 9001 2015. GB/T 34590 is an important reference for functional safety in China and ISO 21448 and GB/T 43267 are important references for SOTIF.

Proposal to correct a paragraph number error in para. 5.3.2.15 of the GTR and para. 7.3.2.15 of the UNR by renumbering them as 5.3.2.14 and 7.3.2.14 respectively. The safety concept shall describe the manufacturer’s approach to scenario selection to cover the reasonably foreseeable situations and conditions that the ADS will encounter including how the following aspects are covered, aligned with WP.29/2026/139 (GTR) and WP.29/2026/137 (UNR).

Proposal to update the explanation on reportable occurrences in Annex 1 (GTR) and 3 (UNR). The revision refines language in the requirement describing the manufacturer’s Safety Management System by removing “expected” to avoid implying obligation and clarifying the link between occurrence monitoring, reporting, analysis, system updates, improvements, and continuous improvement processes.

Proposal to clarify EDR provision in Annex on thresholds. For vehicle categories M₂, M₃, N₂, and N₃, the revised text clarifies that UN Regulation No. 169 does not include a representative delta V threshold. The manufacturer could determine their own delta-V trigger for a critical occurrence, including one based on a subset of EDR triggers, with no obligation to do so.

Proposal to amend para. 8.1.5.1. (ADS UNR) of the audit of the safety policy guidance: Change “may state” to “states,” “may address” to “addresses,” and “may therefore describe” to “therefore describes.” The rationale states that using “may” in the interpretation paragraphs seems inappropriate for explaining regulatory intention, and present tense better suits these requirements.

This proposal for ADS Regulation version 2 addresses remote support for automated driving systems. ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2026/137 contains 19 instances of remote references across definitions, requirements, and annexes, with only remote termination defined. The proposal requests UNECE GRVA to introduce and define different types of remote support, clarify terminology distinctions between remote monitoring, remote assistance, and remote intervention, and articulate which aspects of remote support the regulation covers. The submitter offers to provide definitions developed with ISO 26361 for consideration at the July 2026 ADS IWG meeting.

Proposal to clarify components and functions of the ADS and other vehicle systems relevant to meeting the requirements of the regulation (paras. 5.3.1.4.2 (GTR)/7.3.1.4.2 (UNR)). The revised text specifies that other vehicle systems could include shared components or functions such as sensors, map data, and GNSS used for assistance systems or positioning. Information from outside the vehicle may be included if used to meet regulation requirements. The manufacturer could use different diagram types provided information is present, and additional information regarding wireless links could be included.

The change request seeks clarification that “real-time” operational and tactical functions of the DDT, particularly “sensing and perception” and “planning and decision”, could be achieved through real-time sensor inputs alone or through integration of sensor inputs with other contextual information such as map-based data, to aid technical inspectors during testing and assessment of ADS systems.

Proposal to delete example “collision” under “Failure to meet the ADS requirements under paragraph 6 of this Regulation” in Annex 1 (GTR) and 3 (UNR) List of reportable occurrences by reporting type. The rationale states that not all collisions involving ADS vehicles constitute failure to meet ADS requirements, as some collisions are not caused by ADS or the ADS vehicle, and some collisions are not avoidable, such as suddenly appearing obstructing road users.

Proposal to amend Paragraph 5.3.1.3 (GTR) / 7.3.1.3 (UNR) in Safety Case. The revision replaces “no new behaviours or traffic flows” with “no new behaviours or traffic flows density or dynamic element types” and adds “or traffic behaviour” to the text regarding traffic laws because ODD does not include a definition of traffic behaviour, making the original sentence factually incorrect.

Proposal to amend paragraph 5.3.1.3 (GTR) / 7.3.1.3 (UNR) in Safety Case. The revised text adds “attributes and their respective values” to replace “parameters” in the sentence about links/dependencies between ODD parameters, to ensure consistent terminology and reflect that dependencies exist not only between attributes but also between their values.

Proposal to amend para. 6.2.2.3.8.1 (b) to change “a driving task relevant area” to “the driving task relevant area” and to expand the accompanying GID text to define the driving task relevant area as consisting of different zones including inside mirror, left outside mirror, right outside mirror, left window, right window, windscreen, and instrument cluster or instrument display, and to clarify that depending on the type of ADS feature and driving situation the user could be suitable to have looked at just one zone or more than one zone.

Proposal to amend explanation of para. 6.2.2.1.4. to clarify that ‘while’ refers to continuous presentation of information sufficient to enable a user to take over performance of the DDT such as through ambient lighting, tell-tales, or dashboard colour changes. The explanation notes that information on adapted performance is only presented if applicable.

Proposal to remove explanation for para. 7.3.1.14. The document suggests differences in how ADSF-1 and ADSF-2 vehicles would handle fallbacks to a mitigated risk conditions that have not been fully explored by the ADS informal group. Rather than speculate, the preparatory discussions among IWG experts resulted in a recommendation to omit this explanation pending the next phase of work on the regulations.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1. of the draft UN Regulation. The proposal addresses residual comments concerning wording used to derive scenarios for confirmatory testing by removing terminology not used in the regulation to avoid mis-interpretations. Confirmatory testing scenarios depend on the ADS feature, its ODD, and safety case scenarios. When selecting scenarios, the assessor may consider the ADS system description and its safety concept, and the safety claims presented in the safety case. Confirmatory testing may be undertaken using virtual testing, expected to be within the scope and capability of the toolchain being used, and can be within, at the boundary of or outside the ODD.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.3.1.1. The revised text clarifies that relevant standards supporting the assessment of laboratories could include ISO/IEC 17025 Testing and calibration laboratories, which sets requirements for competence, impartiality, and consistent operation. Applied to ADS testing, it ensures measurements are traceable, validated, and reproducible so results are technically reliable and defensible for approval/certification purposes. However, there is no obligation for the manufacturer or third-party organization involved in the testing to be accredited according to ISO/IEC 17025.

Proposal to explain para. 8.3.2.4.1.4. The revised text divides guidance between ADS users and other road users. For ADS users, representativeness means including a range whose behaviours, skills, and characteristics reflect those reasonably expected to use the ADS, with testing not limited to engineers. For other road users, representativeness means capturing a sufficiently broad range of real-world behaviours and characteristics relevant to the ODD. The revised proposal also addresses statistical significance, encouraging manufacturers to provide calculations explaining their choice of participant numbers and underlying assumptions.

Proposal to explain para. 7.3.2.14. The revised text simplifies the definition of ‘sufficient’ to refer to the scope of tests performed on the fall-back response. With respect to scenarios, the manufacturer is encouraged to describe reasoning behind scenario choice and justification for the overall number chosen, acknowledging that scenario diversity depends on intended use case and operational design domain. References to user numbers and statistical methods for sample size assessment have been removed.

Proposal to explain paragraph 8.3.2.1.2. The revision clarifies that coverage can be evaluated based on the following items and their interdependencies: Operational Environment, Behavioural competency, Scenario-type/category, and Rules of road compliance. A footnote acknowledges that no single item alone can robustly document coverage.

The ADS regulations (GTR and UNR) include definitions for reporting thresholds based on EDR triggering. Time-series data recording for heavy vehicles under UN R169 requires triggers and trigger thresholds to record data in specified time periods, which may not immediately precede, follow, or coincide with crashes. Last Stop, Safety Systems, and Sudden Deceleration triggers are unreliable crash indications. Sudden Deceleration is too sensitive for storing time-series data over several months. Optional SRS or a new independent trigger alongside Detected Collision offers the only viable possibility for effective time-series data recording.

Proposal to revise the guidance on para. 6.1.2.3 of the draft UN Regulation on ADS regarding unreasonable disruption to traffic. The revision changes “prevent normal interaction” to “allow normal interaction” and “require other road users” to “may technically require other road users” to clarify that the requirement permits normal interaction with traffic, such as using on ramps, slowing for traffic lights, and waiting at unprotected turns, where other road users must adapt their speed, without violating the requirement.

Proposal to amend WP.29/2026/139 to amend para. 4.2.2.3.8.1. subparagraph (b) to replace “a the driving task relevant area” with “the driving task relevant area”, amend para. 6.3.2.2.3. to replace “approval authority” with “assessment”, amend Annex 5 table 5 rows 1 and 2 column 7 to replace “minimal risk manoeuvre” with “fallback to a mitigated risk condition” and remove brackets around deceleration threshold from ⁴ m/s², remove brackets in Annex 6 para. 5.3.1., and amend Annex 6 para. 5.3.2. table to insert “Mandatory” in row 1 column 2 and remove brackets after the table.

Proposal to amend ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2026/137: replace “[ADS]”, “[XXX]”, and “[number of this Regulation]” with the UN Regulation number upon adoption throughout Contents, Appendices, and Annexes; amend para. 1.2. cross-reference to read “7.2.3.17.”; amend para. 6.2.2.3.8.1.(b) to specify gaze directed to “the” driving task relevant area; remove brackets around “7.4.” in para. 11.2.; add period after number in Annex 1 para. 5.1.; amend Annex 1 Appendix 1 paras. 1.4.5., 1.4.7., and renumber 1.4.12., 1.4.12.1., 1.4.12.2. as 1.4.11.5., 1.4.11.5.1., 1.4.11.5.2.; amend Annex 7 table 5 rows 1–2 column 7 to replace “minimal risk manoeuvre” with “fallback to a mitigated risk condition”; remove brackets in Annex 8 para. 5.3.1. and amend para. 5.3.2. table to insert “Mandatory” in row 1.

This document is a draft Guidance and Interpretation Document (GID) for UN Global Technical Regulation and UN Regulation on Automated Driving Systems, based on GRVA/2026/3 as amended by GRVA-24-29 and WP.29-198-09. The GID provides explanatory text, guidance, and examples to support implementation of ADS requirements without introducing new obligations. It covers scope, definitions, application for approval, approval procedures, ADS performance requirements in nominal, critical, and failure situations, interactions between ADS and users, safety management systems, test environments including simulation credibility frameworks, safety case requirements, post-deployment safety monitoring with reportable occurrences, and compliance assessment procedures. The document clarifies terminology including operational states of ADS features, critical occurrences, driving situations, and mitigated risk conditions, and provides detailed guidance on ODD definition, safety case structure, confirmatory testing approaches, and in-service reporting templates with threshold definitions for critical occurrences.

Since January 2026, the group accepted proposals ADS-20-15, ADS-20-16, and ADS-20-48/Rev.1 for minor amendments. Working documents WP.29/2026/139 and WP.29/2026/137 were submitted for WP.29’s 199th session. Two informal documents (ADS-20-59 and ADS-20-60) will amend these working documents. GRVA seeks a three-year mandate extension for the informal group to address identified future work items beyond June 2026.