PREMIS User Group is free and open for all PREMIS users. You can join the group, attend the meetings and get access to the group resources.
The main goal of the User Group is to share experiences and best practices of using assurance cases and the PREMIS tool.
We meet online on the second Thursday of each month. We have a specific topic for our discussion for each meeting. You can actively participate, share your opinions and hear about experiences of other members. You can also present your ideas, your approach for assurance cases and propose topics for discussion.
The next meeting: Thursday, 13 November 2025 at 15:00 CET / 14:00 GMT / 9:00 EST
The topic of the meeting is Managing context in the argument structure.
Context is everything in assurance cases. It is impossible to judge whether a given argumentation step is valid without a full understanding of the applicable context. It is crucial to understand the right context for each argumentation step during development and reviews. When using AI tools, it is important to ensure that they correctly understand the context. Are you sure the AI tool understands the context of a claim deep in your argument structure in the same way as you do?
Assurance cases usually start with top claims and carefully specified context. The context may cover the object the argument, a system or a device, assurance objectives such as specific safety and security level, operational environment and information related to the system life cycle. When we decompose the argument into subclaims, the context gets more and more detailed, for example subclaims refer to specific life cycle phases or actions, subsystems or components, hazards or threats. An assurance case may have many layers of argument and the context in each layer will be different.
During the PUG meeting we will discuss:
- What means do we use to represent the context?
- GSN standard uses the term of inherited context. Does it always work?
- Is this easy for all participants to grasp the context of each argument step, even deep in the argument structure?
- Are AI tools good at identifying the right context of each argument step to verify it’s complete and valid?
- What are the best practices for context management?
To join PREMIS User Group meetings please fill in the form.
The membership is free and you can leave the group at any moment.
The topics discussed on the past meetings were:
‒ 09.10.2025: AI assistant scenarios in assurance case development
‒ 11.09.2025: SPI at work
‒ 12.06.2025: Integrating development-time and operational-time evidence in assurance cases
‒ 08.05.2025: Integration of safety and security assurance cases
‒ 10.04.2025: Assurance case building blocks
‒ 13.03.2025: Managing Context in Modular Assurance Case
‒ 13.02.2025: Managing the confidence argument and defeaters
‒ 16.01.2025: Improving the way we assess assurance cases
‒ 12.12.2024: Assurance case reviews, assessment and improvement
‒ 14.11.2024: Argument assessment in PREMIS – experiences with implemented methods and new challenges
‒ 10.10.2024: Automatic data feed of the argument – a step towards dynamic assurance cases
‒ 12.09.2024: Managing Changing Product Liability Obligations Emerging from new Proposed EU Directive
‒ 13.06.2024: PREMIS – a containerized assurance case tool
– 09.05.2024: Context-aware assurance case templates
‒ 18.04.2024: Context management in modular assurance cases
‒ 14.03.2024: Modular Assurance of Complex Systems Using Contract-Based Design Principles
‒ 02.02.2024: How will AI change the way we work with assurance cases?
‒ 11.01.2024: Top-down development of a modular assurance case
‒ 14.12.2023: Controlling the argument with templates
‒ 09.11.2023: Assurance case templates and synchronization
‒ 12.10.2023: How to manage dependencies in cybersecurity modular assurance cases?
‒ 14.09.2023: Implementing modular argumentation in NOR-STA – a case study
‒ 15.06.2023: Improving modular assurance case management
‒ 11.05.2023: Making high-level assurance case management easier
‒ 13.04.2023: Planning new ways to manage assurance case architecture
‒ 09.03.2023: Managing issues in assurance case development process
‒ 09.02.2023: How do I want NOR-STA to interact with me?
‒ 12.01.2023: Assurance case development in NOR-STA – tips and tricks
‒ 08.12.2022: Assurance/conformance cases – where is the added value?
‒ 10.11.2022: Challenges of assurance case portfolio management
‒ 13.10.2022: Information flow in assurance case automation
‒ 08.09.2022: Automation in assurance case development
‒ 09.06.2022: Security Protection Profiles for systems components
‒ 12.05.2022: Managing assumptions in modular assurance cases
‒ 21.04.2022: Assumptions management – demonstrators in NOR-STA
‒ 10.03.2022: Assumptions – their place and role in assurance cases
‒ 10.02.2022: Assurance case integration in the system tool chain
‒ 13.01.2022: How to keep arguments up-to-date when evidence changes?
‒ 09.12.2021: How to integrate assurance case process with the system life cycle?
‒ 18.11.2021: Making assurance case process agile
‒ 14.10.2021: Assurance case management with metadata
‒ 09.09.2021: Assurance case quality and assessment
‒ 10.06.2021: What we have learned – Assurance process summary
‒ 20.05.2021: The present and future of argument assessment in NOR-STA
‒ 08.04.2021: Argument development/assessment process
‒ 11.03.2021: Continuous assurance/conformance
‒ 11.02.2021: What is a good assurance case?
‒ 14.01.2021: Modular arguments
When you have any questions related to the User Group please contact us at nug@argevide.com.