Service experience (including non-airborne use) may substantiate assurance for previously developed hardware and COTS. Its relevance depends on similarity of usage (application, function, environment, assurance level), how far the data reflects the proposed configuration, how far design errors found in service were eliminated, mitigated or shown to have no safety impact in that configuration, and actual in-service failure rates; the PHAC addresses where assurance relies on it.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.