[SystemSafety] Baseline Safety Assessment for a Linux-based OS to SIL 3 /ASIL D

[Derek M Jones]

All,

> I confess even after all this time I still don't fully understand the linguistic nuances is this special "functional 
> safety language", so thank you for your attempt at explanation.

The contents of this exida report is somewhat impenetrable,
and is missing lots of context.  I looked at some other exida
functional safety assessments and they were similarly impenetrable:

https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/functional-safety-certificate-functional-safety-assessment-report-micro-motion-4200-coriolis-flowmeter-en-9295638.pdf
https://www.emerson.com/documents/automation/functional-safety-certificate-assessment-3051smv-multivariable-transmitter-en-792748.pdf
https://www.scatts.co.uk/datasheets/420768?desc=Worldwide-Exida-Functional-Safety-Assessment
https://www.exida.com/images/upload_13/Rosemount_11-02-57_R002_V1R2_IEC_61508_Assessment.pdf

I'm guessing that my lack of understanding comes from
not been to the appropriate meetings, been apprenticed
to a master of the trade and not having read many of
these reports.

I checked with our AI overlords.
Grok does not seem to be much more informed than me
https://x.com/i/grok/share/ML714QzHgwKhASY2mzyC2bEp4

while ChatGPT seems better informed, or is hallucinating
https://chatgpt.com/share/681ca55e-db58-800f-a881-e2d29f923dac

Is the main takeaway from this report that the assessment
was a pass?  Is all the other material box ticking evidence
that exida did their homework?  The reports are all very similar
in length, is this the cheapest option and you can pay more to
get a longer report, or perhaps it's because the sample is small?

Would any human expert on functional safety assessment reports
like to comment?

-- 
Derek M. Jones           Evidence-based software engineering
blog:https://shape-of-code.com