Final Interpretation for RI # 192 - Sequencing of sub-activities




Sequencing of sub-activities



CC Part #1 Reference:


CC Part #2 Reference:


CC Part #3 Reference:


CEM Reference:

 CEM, Annex B.4.2



The CEM is misleading on whether a pass verdict on a sub-activity can be assigned if all sub-activities on which it has a dependency are successfully completed. This leads to trouble with sequencing ASE_INT and ASE_DES who have a circular dependency.
CEM para 1801 and further: "Dependencies identified between components in CC Part 3 have to be considered by the evaluator. An example for this kind of dependency is AVA_VLA.1. This component claims dependencies on ADV_FSP.1, ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1. A sub-activity can be assigned a pass verdict normally only if all those sub-activities are successfully completed on which it has a dependency. For example, a pass verdict on AVA_VLA.1 can normally only be assigned if the sub-activities related to ADV_FSP.1, ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1 are assigned a pass verdict too."
Consider the following example (VLA): Two evaluators are both given a functional specification, a high-level design, the administrator and user guidance and are asked to evaluate AVA_VLA.1 based on these documents. One evaluator is told that all sub-activities related to ADV_FSP.1, ADV_HLD.1, AGD_ADM.1 and AGD_USR.1 are assigned a pass verdict. The other evaluator is told that they haven't been assigned a pass verdict. Why can't the second pass the sub-activity as the document input is the same?


Performing a sub-activity can be done regardless of the pass/fail status of other sub-activities that that sub-activity has a dependency on. However, given that:

- evaluation of an input may uncover errors in that input
- errors in that input will normally lead to changes in that input
- the sub-activity may have to be redone whenever one of the inputs from dependencies changes

some sequences of sub-activities may have to be repeated.

Specific Changes

CEM, Annex B.4.2 is changed as follows:

Note that some components from the CC, such as ASE_INT and ASE_DES have a dependency on each other, and that therefore this problem occurs for every sequence of performing the related sub-activities.



This interpretation clarifies the evaluator needs to consider the results of dependent sub-activities if a flaw is detected during a given sub-activity.