Completeness is hard to prove and is treated as the probable outcome of a validation process combining templates, checklists and the participation of the customers, the users and maintainers, the Certification Authorities and the developers, using the requirement classes of 5.3.1 as a basis and accepting that stakeholders may have needs they have not voiced; the specific process for assessing completeness is defined in the validation plan. A standard specification template based on lessons learned can reveal omissions, and checklists used by authors and reviewers cover every party with a main stake in the system and its interfaces, tailored to the application, asking at each level whether traceability and rationale show that requirements will satisfy their parent and whether the set fully covers the higher-level functions allocated to the system and the safety assessments, among further items.
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.