I will give a practice run of my talk for the UK Safety-Critical Systems Symposium.
It is technically possible to build systems of formal argumentation which help assemble evidence relating system designs to contextual material, such as safety guidelines. However, a number of assumptions underly this choice of architecture and influence its ability to support safer design. Many of these assumptions are not purely technical and apply regardless of the choice of formal representation. Using as an example a prototype argumentation system from a safety-related domain, a set of assumptions is identified and generalised to this class of system.