EOSID design criterion at least known to me as follows:
Flight Path with Engine Failure at V1
When an engine failure occurs during take-off, the obstacle clearance is based on the “Engine-Out Standard Instrument Departure (EOSID)” or “Special EOSID”. Engine failure procedures are based on engine failure at V1 (or after, but before initial turn on to SID), to avoid obstacles that have not been considered in the analysis, and which would reduce the Regulated Take-off Mass, or flex temperature if they were to be considered. If engine failure occurs after initial turn onto SID, continue following the SID. At airfields where such performance is not guaranteed, a SID specific decision point procedure is developed. The heights of obstructions are modified to reflect the climb gradient loss due to banking the aircraft. No gradient degradation is applied to turn with a magnetic heading change less than 15 deg.
The procedures provide a min terrain clearance of 35ft in level flight, and 50ft during a turn. It is imperative that the turn be commenced at the proper time, distance or location as specified in the instruction for each turn procedure. Turning too early, with the subsequent reduction in the climb gradient, may well leave no clearance over close-in obstacles in the vicinity of the airfield, and turning too late may take the aircraft outside the area over which the terrain clearance performance has been calculated.
Constructing this kind of procedure whole range of take off weights along with utmost unfavorable temperatures and winds are to be taken into account. The Engine-out SID Procedure (EOSID) guarantees obstacle clearance over the whole flight path, provided the airplane continues climbing after flap/slat retraction for at least one round in the holding pattern (unless above MSA). It's pretty clear to me that as long as one follows the EOSID even being below MSA it's safe.
