Requirements say what the system of interest needs, not how it is to be achieved; design decisions appear only as they are recognized from higher levels during allocation. Vague and unbounded wording is avoided because it defeats verification and invites several readings: superlatives, subjective language, vague pronouns, ambiguous adverbs and adjectives, 'or' and 'and/or' logic (split into separate requirements), open-ended phrases, comparatives, loopholes such as 'if possible' or 'as applicable', words implying totality such as 'all' or 'never', and references that omit the date, version or the applicable part. Every assumption behind a requirement is documented and validated, either in an attribute such as rationale or in an accompanying document, and definitions are written as declarative statements rather than as requirements.
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.