Honestly I'm in awe of the lot of programmers who take these kinds of tasks on. I don't know how they can relax at all relative to their work.
They strictly follow procedures. If faulty code gets through to production and somehow causes a fatality, it's a failure of the procedures, not the individual developer. This works so well in aviation and yet seems completely non-existent in the automotive world.
"We can't satisfy the safety case yet" is all you need to say to get your manager to cave.
If they want to take the risk upon themselves to sign off on a known-unsafe (technically; in practice it was already pretty good, just not good enough yet) device, and go to jail if something goes sideways, they can be my guest...
In practice, they preferred to come back next week and ask if we were done yet.
The project went wayyyy past the deadline, thanks for asking :-)
Part of the regulatory process is to demonstrate sufficient levels of resilience in both the systems produced and the development process used to produce them. It should be a really boring process with a lot of crosschecks. You should be sleeping well knowing that your work is being reviewed and tested and attacked by other people.
(Reality is often different, of course. Just don't try to be the hero.)
Hopefully at least, but you never know where those random shell scripts you put in a gist (or whatever) might end up.