Where independent safety assessment is performed (the standard does not say when; regulation, sector standards or contract do), its content and scope are described in an ISA plan developed with the remitter from the system definition and requirements specification, giving the remit, the activities and their links to engineering activities, the items to be considered, pass/fail criteria and non-conformance handling, and the documentation requirements; each assessment meets the plan, establishes a grasp of the process or system in its environment, assesses the adequacy of the RAMS validation plan for safety, evaluates conformity of the process and outcomes with the standard considering the verification and validation already done, identifies and evaluates deviations from the remit, judges whether the safety justification is acceptable in the safety case including that constraints are captured as SRACs sufficient to control the risk, inspects the development process at various phases and may request further verification and validation, and records its activities; the assessor has access to the process and all project documentation; the report identifies the assessed items, records results, concludes and may recommend; a previously assessed system is assessed for safe integration; the assessor meets EN 50126-2 clause 7; deliverables are the ISA plan, the findings record and the ISA report.
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.