The first of clause 9's two alternatives: the probability of violating each safety goal through random hardware failures is computed as an average per hour over the vehicle life and compared with a target value by ASIL (derived from similar trusted designs or taken from the standard's table), with the failure rates and the diagnostic coverage of the safety mechanisms justified; part 10 8.4 explains the unit. Sub-clause title from the held contents page; the clause's objectives quoted by a certification body; requirement text not held.
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.