Information returned from hardware to the system process may include the implementation of the requirements (drawings, schematics, parts lists); hardware derived requirements that may affect any allocated requirement; the implementation architecture including fault containment boundaries; evidence of system verification and validation done during hardware development; product safety analysis data such as failure rates for the hardware functional failures the SSA is concerned with, common mode fault analysis, isolation boundaries and fault mitigation strategies, and latency data such as fault monitoring provisions, detection intervals and undetectable faults; hardware verification to be done at system level; assumptions on installation and environment on which analyses depend; and problem or change reports affecting system, software or allocated hardware requirements.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 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 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.