Development is viewed in two phases: a function development phase, in which function requirements are developed, validated and allocated to items with rigor set by the function development assurance level (FDAL), whose objectives are in this document and whose applicability per FDAL is given in Appendix A; and an item development phase, in which items are built with rigor set by the item development assurance level (IDAL) using DO-254 (electronic hardware) or DO-178C (software), while hardware-software integration objectives come from this document. For IDAL purposes an item contains no architectural feature credited for mitigating its own development errors; credited architecture means design independence between items. Simple hardware items, whose every failure mode can be covered completely by test and analysis (mechanical, electro-mechanical devices, valves) carry no IDAL, though the function using them has an FDAL, and their validation and verification follow established practice for such hardware.
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.