Correctness of the stated requirements is reviewed and justified at every level of the hierarchy using validation methods, with a question list tailored and extended for the application: whether each requirement is correctly stated (single interpretation, recognizable as a requirement, not redundant, not conflicting, free of factual errors, physically achievable, stating what is needed, when and to what standard rather than how to do it, carrying enough information for complete and consistent future change, with specific tolerances, verifiable, with rationale if derived, with its source identified and correct, and not bundling several characteristics); whether it is needed for completeness; whether several should be combined; whether the set correctly reflects the safety analyses (all safety assessment requirements included, failure conditions identified and classified correctly, unsafe design or design errors considered, integrity, reliability, availability and failure tolerance included); whether the chosen validation methods suffice; and whether all assumptions behind the requirement are captured.
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.