The item is described at vehicle level: what it does, how it depends on and interacts with the driver, its surroundings and other items, so that the later sub-phases rest on a sound grasp of it; the description takes in functions, interfaces, environmental conditions, legal obligations and hazards and is the input to the HARA (clause 6) and the functional safety concept (clause 7). 5.4.1 requires the item's requirements to be available, covering: legal obligations and the national and international standards that apply; how the function behaves at vehicle level in each operating mode or state; the level of quality, performance and availability expected of the function where that matters; limits on the item such as its functional ties, its reliance on other items and its operating environment; and what could follow if the item behaves wrongly, known failure modes and hazards (incidents with comparable items among them) included. Requirements can only be labelled safety-related once safety goals and ASILs are set. The remainder of 5.4 (boundary, interfaces and assumptions) is not held.
This control maps to 3 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 3 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.