argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →
Unidentified hazards escape the assurance chain
forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →Incomplete hazard identification is a principal cause of safety assurance failures
The argument
A safety case can only assess and control the hazards its analysis identifies, so any hazard missed at identification passes through the rest of the assurance process unexamined. Because accident investigations frequently find hazards that prior analyses failed to identify, and given that traditional hazard analysis techniques miss interaction hazards in complex software-intensive systems, incomplete identification is a systematic gap at the foundation of assurance, and failures of assurance trace back to it.
Does it work?
Not yet evaluated.
Premises
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Accident investigations frequently find hazards that prior hazard analyses failed to identify
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Traditional hazard analysis techniques miss hazards arising from component interactions in complex software-intensive systems
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.