The tool impact (whether a tool fault could inject an error into a safety-related item or let one pass unnoticed) and the tool error detection (the confidence that such a malfunction is prevented or detected) are determined by analysis and combined into the tool confidence level TCL 1, 2 or 3 per the standard's table, with the rationale documented. This sits in clause 11, whose stated aims, per the SGS quotation, are criteria for the confidence needed in a software tool and, where applicable, the means to qualify the tool so its use for tasks the standard requires can be relied on. 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.