Detailed table for structural coverage: statement coverage is R at Basic Integrity and HR at SIL 1 to 4; branch, compound condition, data flow and path coverage are R at SIL 1 and 2 and HR at SIL 3 and 4. For SIL 1 to 4 a quantified coverage measure is developed for the testing done, supporting the judgement of confidence and whether more techniques are needed. At SIL 3 and 4 component coverage should be measured as branch with compound condition, branch with data flow, or path coverage, or integration coverage by one or more of those criteria. Other justified criteria may be used depending on architecture and language. Code that cannot practicably be tested is shown correct by another suitable technique such as static analysis. Statement coverage follows from the others; branch and compound condition coincide where only single conditions occur; boundary and equivalence techniques can reach coverage with fewer tests; component coverage may be reached during integration or overall testing.
This control maps to 3 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 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.