C.2.2:5.1 - System illustration

System. A brake controller S has a claim:

c1: “For road friction μ ∈ [0.2, 0.9] and vehicle mass m ∈ [900, 2200] kg, wheel slip stays in [0.05, 0.25] under ABS control.”

• F(c1)=F5 because the controller and constraints are expressed as a machine-checkable model plus executable test harness (C.2.3).

• G(c1) has the stated μ/m bounds, but this illustration leaves the speed domain and admissible tire set unspecified. Under A.2.6, those domains and any coupled restrictions are needed to decide membership of a slice satisfying the stated bounds; that membership remains unresolved here. A product set in (μ, m, speed, tire) space is justified only if its scope predicate admits every combination of the selected domains.

• Evidence:

  • VA: model-checking of a simplified plant/controller model (strong, but only for the simplified plant).
  • LA: HIL simulation + track tests under sampled conditions with recorded telemetry windows (freshness required).
  • TA: typed alignment between “μ” in simulations, “μ” in the estimation pipeline, and “μ” inferred from real-world sensors.

If track telemetry is used as evidence for the road claim, establish the exact A.10 or B.3 evidence-use and reliance claim, including the road claim, telemetry edition, operating scope, validity window, and intended use. Apply only the fit or loss declared for that evidence reuse; G(c1) changes only through a separate A.2.6 scope revision.