The second alternative: each single-point, residual and dual-point fault of each hardware part that can violate a safety goal is evaluated individually against failure rate class and diagnostic coverage criteria set by ASIL, as a cut-set study of the part-level faults rather than a global probability. 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.