| Cyber artifacts required | Applicable cybersecurity evidence | Applicable cybersecurity evidence | Applicable cybersecurity evidence | Scaled to the trial |
| Documentation depth | Moderate. Predicate comparison anchors scope. | High. No predicate, so controls must be justified from first principles. | Highest. Full design-history-level traceability. | Focused on patient safety during the study. |
| Penetration testing expected | Yes, independent report with plan, cases, and findings. | Yes, plus rationale tying tests to novel risk. | Yes, often with re-test after design changes. | Yes for connected devices, narrower scope. |
| Threat model scrutiny | Trust boundaries and STRIDE coverage. | Same, plus special-controls justification. | Same, plus multi-patient harm and manufacturing scope. | Same, scoped to investigational use. |
| SBOM and support dates | Machine-readable, with end-of-support dates. | Same. | Same, plus change control across modules. | Same. |
| Review clock | 90 FDA days, 180-day deficiency response window. | 150 FDA days. | 180 FDA days, panel possible. | Confirm the applicable IDE review process with your regulatory team. |
| Postmarket plan weight | Required. | Required, ties into special controls. | Required, plus annual report updates. | Study-specific vulnerability handling; not a Section 524B marketing obligation. |
| Cybersecurity delivery dates | Agreed after scope and evidence review | Agreed after scope and evidence review | Agreed after scope and evidence review | Agreed for the investigational build and study |