Safety activities of a specific item development may be tailored (omitted or performed differently from the reference lifecycle) only if the tailoring is defined in the safety plan (6.4.6.5 b) and a rationale shows the tailored set is fit and enough for functional safety, considering the ASIL of the relevant requirements; tailoring based on an impact analysis (6.4.3, 6.4.4) shall meet 6.4.6.7; tailoring based on a proven in use argument, on hardware element evaluation, on software component qualification or on confidence in a software tool shall meet ISO 26262-8 clauses 14, 13, 12 or 11 respectively; tailoring because an element is built as an SEooC requires that the SEooC be developed on a requirements specification derived from assumptions on its intended use and context including its external interfaces, and that the assumptions be validated when the element is integrated into its target application; for trucks and buses, applications out of the standard's scope interfacing a base vehicle developed to it are tailored under ISO 26262-8 clause 15 and systems not developed to the standard under clause 16.
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.