Integration Dependency and Evidence Map

Check what each proposed route needs to deliver the required outcome, and whether its evidence and permissions still apply.

Download framework

Discuss this decision

An alternative can share the same unresolved condition

Two ways to provide a service may depend on the same configuration, people or evidence. When that shared condition changes, switching routes may leave the underlying gap unresolved. A successful earlier test also needs to remain applicable to the configuration now proposed.

Connect every route to its conditions

Record what must be true for each route to deliver the required outcome. Link those claims to their dependencies, supporting evidence and current permission. Show shared conditions wherever they affect more than one route. Keep missing, contradicted and outdated evidence distinct so you can identify the next test, repair or review.

Shared conditions feed two operating routes. Each route needs applicable evidence and permission before it can be relied upon.

Illustrative example.

View larger diagram

A shared change requires both routes to be reassessed

The illustrative upgrade must alert a duty operator within 60 seconds of a critical alarm. A remote alarm and a staffed local console each have supporting checks for the installed configuration.

A later software change alters alarm priorities. The earlier results remain part of the record, but their applicability to the new configuration must be checked before either route can be relied on.

Illustrative logical dependencies, not reliability probabilities. Retain the earlier results as records; assess their applicability to the changed configuration before relying on either route.

Changed condition
Routes affected
Next action
Remote communications result fails
Routes affectedRemote alarm route
Next actionRepair and retest that route
Local drill remains current
Routes affectedStaffed console retains evidence support
Next actionCheck staffing and current permission
Shared alarm configuration changes
Routes affectedBoth routes
Next actionReview affected claims, evidence and permission scope

Illustrative logical dependencies, not reliability probabilities. Retain the earlier results as records; assess their applicability to the changed configuration before relying on either route.
Changed condition	Routes affected	Next action
Remote communications result fails	Remote alarm route	Repair and retest that route
Local drill remains current	Staffed console retains evidence support	Check staffing and current permission
Shared alarm configuration changes	Both routes	Review affected claims, evidence and permission scope

Make the basis of the decision traceable

Use the map during requirements and design coordination, integration planning, testing or an operating change. Record each conditional requirement and the trigger that makes it applicable. Reassess all linked routes when a shared input changes.

What you bring

Required performance, configuration and period; route dependencies; claims and evidence with applicability; permission scope, authority and status; unresolved conditions and accountable owners.

What the comparison provides

The conditions supporting each route, shared gaps, affected claims after a change and the tests, repairs, reviews or permissions needed next.

A supported route still requires the proper decisions

Evidence must be assessed for the intended configuration and operating conditions. A route count does not establish independence or reliability. The map does not perform safety analysis or evaluate every failure combination and degraded mode. Technical evidence cannot substitute for permission, and the map does not authorise operation.