Require the developer of the system, system component, or system service to: (a) Produce, as an integral part of the development process, a formal top-level specification that specifies the interfaces to security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware in terms of exceptions, error messages, and effects; (b) Show via proof to the extent feasible with additional informal demonstration as necessary, that the formal top-level specification is consistent with the formal policy model; (c) Show via informal demonstration, that the formal top-level specification completely covers the interfaces to security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware; (d) Show that the formal top-level specification is an accurate description of the implemented security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware; and (e) Describe the security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware mechanisms not addressed in the formal top-level specification but strictly internal to the security-relevant hardware, software, and firmware.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 NIST800-SA-17(3) is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO 27001:2022 and 163 of 1014 NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 342 were rejected on the ISO 27001:2022 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.