A plan is prepared covering the routine actions that keep functional safety in place; the actions and constraints needed in start-up, routine running and testing, foreseeable upsets, faults and shutdown to avoid an unsafe state, cut demands on the safety system or limit consequences (including bypass conditions, permit-to-work and authority levels); the records to keep of functional safety audits and tests and of hazardous events and near-misses; the scope of maintenance as opposed to modification; the response to hazardous events; and the content of the chronological operation and maintenance records. If a subsystem with zero hardware fault tolerance is taken offline for testing, additional measures must give at least equal safety integrity; with fault tolerance above zero, at least one channel stays in service and the test is finished within the MTTR assumed in the failure measure calculation. Routine maintenance to reveal hidden faults is set by systematic analysis, and the maintenance plan is agreed with those operating and maintaining the safety systems, the other risk reduction measures and any non-safety systems that can place demands.
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.