## 2 Related Work and Foundational Concepts
### The Rationale for AZTRM-D's Integrated Approach  
As the comparison in Table 2 illustrates, existing advancements tend to address specific facets of the secure development challenge. AZTRM-D is proposed as a comprehensive solution designed to bridge these gaps. For an organization operating in a high-stakes, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt} p{113.8 pt}} \hline \hline
**Framework/Approach** & **Core Principles** & **AI/Automation Focus** & **Gap Addressed by AZTRM-D** \\ \hline Standard DevSecOps [17] & Integration of security into CI/CD; automation of security checks; shared responsibility culture. & Automated SAST/DAST scanning; CI/CD pipeline automation. & Latcs a prescribed, formal risk management structure (like RMF) and a guiding access control philosophy (like ZT). Security can still be ad hoc. \\ AI-Enhanced Threat Modeling [29] & Using ML/AI to predict and identify design-level security threats early in the life cycle. & Automated generation of threat models from system artifacts; predictive vulnerability analysis. & Differentially \"left side\" (design/planning). Does not extend across the full operational life cycle, including runtime monitoring and incident response. \\  & Extending ZT principles (“never trust, always verify”) to all third-party software components, dependencies, and build processes. & Automated dependency scanning (SCA); cryptographic verification of software artifacts (signing). & Automated dependency scanning (SCA); cryptographic verification of software artifacts (signing). & Differentially \"left side\" (design/planning). Does not extend across the full operational life cycle, including runtime monitoring and incident response. \\  & Extending ZT principles (“never trust, always verify”) to all third-party software components, dependencies, and build processes. & Automated dependency scanning (SCA); cryptographic verification of software artifacts (signing). & Differentially \"left side\" (design/planning). Does not extend across the full operational life cycle, including runtime monitoring and incident response. \\  & & Extending ZT principles (“never trust, always verify”) to all third-party software components, dependencies, and build processes. & Automated dependency scanning (SCA); cryptographic verification of software artifacts (signing). & Differentially \"left side\" (design/planning). Does not extend across the full operational life cycle, including runtime monitoring and incident response. \\  & & Fervasive AI orchestration across all phases, from AI-driven risk assessment and policy generation to automated ZT enforcement and adaptive threat response. & Provides a single, holistic framework that unifies agile development, structured risk governance, and adaptive access control, ensuring security is continuous, risk-based, and context-aware from planning to operations. \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Modern Secure Development Approaches. regulated environment, a methodology that only focuses on CI/CD automation or threat modeling is insufficient. A truly resilient security posture requires the seamless integration of several paradigms. It needs the methodological agility and automation of DevSecOps, the granular and continuous access control provided by a Zero Trust philosophy, and the structured governance of a formal Risk Management Framework (RMF) to ensure all activities are measurable and compliant. Tying these complex domains together requires an engine for scalable and adaptive orchestration, a role fulfilled by Artificial Intelligence [8]. The selection of DevSecOps as the foundational process for AZTRM-D is therefore a strategic decision. Its principles of automation and continuous integration are prerequisites for implementing a dynamic security model at scale.