Framework overlap

Does Bahrain PDPL cover ISO 26262:2018?

You hold Bahrain PDPL and have been told to do ISO 26262:2018. Here is how much overlaps, control by control.

6% of ISO 26262:2018 you already have

Bahrain PDPL already covers about 6% of ISO 26262:2018, leaving 65 of 69 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 1 Likely covered 3 New work 65

What is genuinely new work

Nothing in Bahrain PDPL reaches these. This is the list to scope.

ISO-26262-2-5
Overall safety management
ISO-26262-2-6
Safety management during the concept and product development
ISO-26262-2-7
Safety management after release for production
ISO-26262-2-8
Safety culture
ISO-26262-2-9
Confirmation measures
ISO-26262-3-6
Initiation of the safety lifecycle
ISO-26262-3-8
Functional safety concept
ISO-26262-4-10
Functional safety assessment
ISO-26262-4-5
Initiation of product development at the system level
ISO-26262-4-6
Specification of the technical safety requirements
ISO-26262-4-7
System design
ISO-26262-4-8
Item integration and testing
ISO-26262-4-9
Safety validation
ISO-26262-5-10
Hardware integration and verification
ISO-26262-5-5
Initiation of product development at the hardware level
ISO-26262-5-6
Specification of hardware safety requirements
ISO-26262-5-7
Hardware design
ISO-26262-5-8
Evaluation of the hardware architectural metrics
ISO-26262-5-9
Evaluation of safety goal violations due to random hardware failures
ISO-26262-6-10
Software integration and testing
ISO-26262-6-11
Verification of software safety requirements
ISO-26262-6-5
Initiation of product development at the software level
ISO-26262-6-6
Specification of software safety requirements
ISO-26262-6-7
Software architectural design
ISO-26262-6-8
Software unit design and implementation
ISO-26262-6-9
Software unit testing
ISO-26262-7-5
Production
ISO-26262-7-6
Operation, service (maintenance and repair)
ISO-26262-7-7
Decommissioning
ISO-26262-8-10
Documentation
ISO-26262-8-11
Confidence in the use of software tools
ISO-26262-8-12
Qualification of software components
ISO-26262-8-13
Qualification of hardware components
ISO-26262-8-14
Proven in use argument
ISO-26262-8-5
Interfaces within distributed developments
ISO-26262-8-6
Specification and management of safety requirements
ISO-26262-8-9
Verification
ISO-26262-9-5
Requirements decomposition with respect to ASIL tailoring
ISO-26262-9-6
Criteria for coexistence of elements
ISO-26262-9-7
Analysis of dependent failures
ISO-26262-9-8
Safety analyses
ISO26262-2.5
Safety Management Overall
ISO26262-2.6
Project Dependent Safety Management
ISO26262-3.5
Item Definition
ISO26262-3.6
Hazard Analysis and Risk Assessment
ISO26262-3.7
Functional Safety Concept
ISO26262-4.6
Technical Safety Concept
ISO26262-4.7
System and Item Integration and Testing
ISO26262-4.8
Safety Validation
ISO26262-5.6
Hardware Safety Requirements
ISO26262-5.7
Hardware Design
ISO26262-5.8
Evaluation of Hardware Architectural Metrics
ISO26262-5.9
Evaluation of Safety Goal Violations Due to Random Hardware Failures
ISO26262-6.10
Software Integration and Verification
ISO26262-6.6
Software Safety Requirements
ISO26262-6.7
Software Architectural Design
ISO26262-6.8
Software Unit Design and Implementation
ISO26262-6.9
Software Unit Verification
ISO26262-7.5
Production
ISO26262-7.6
Operation, Service, and Decommissioning
ISO26262-8.11
Confidence in the Use of Software Tools
ISO26262-8.12
Qualification of Software Components
ISO26262-8.6
Specification and Management of Safety Requirements
ISO26262-9.5
Requirements Decomposition with Respect to ASIL Tailoring
ISO26262-9.7
Safety Analyses
Show the 4 you already have
ISO-26262-3-7
Hazard analysis and risk assessment (HARA)
ISO-26262-3-5
Item definition
ISO-26262-8-7
Configuration management
ISO-26262-8-8
Change management

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Bahrain PDPL to that control. Likely covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified fact.

Coverage is not symmetric. Run it the other way and you will get a different number; both are correct.

From 332,959 cross-framework control mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.

Try another pair ยท Today's edition