4 standards bodies wrote this down separately. None of them consulted the others. That is not a preference you can argue with, it is what happens.From 7 controls across our corpus
Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- AI system inventory with risk classification
- Model evaluation reports including bias and safety testing
- AI ethics committee review records
- Statutory mapping document linking definitions to internal terms
- Scope statement signed by accountable owner
- Glossary version control with effective dates
What closing it also buys you
The 7 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023)21
Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018)57
GDPR20
ISO/IEC 23894:20235
ISO/IEC 29100:20249
Barbados Data Protection Act 201926
UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code)30
Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 2011100
AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF)19
Azerbaijan Law on Personal Data (2010)33
ISO/IEC 27011:20245
Saudi Arabia PDPL13
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023) Switzerland | 21.4% | 12 of 56 |
| Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018) Austria | 57.1% | 8 of 14 |
| GDPR European Union | 20.0% | 8 of 40 |
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 5.8% | 7 of 121 |
| ISO/IEC 29100:2024 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 9.0% | 6 of 67 |
| Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 Barbados | 26.1% | 6 of 23 |
| UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code) United Kingdom | 30.0% | 6 of 20 |
| Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 2011 Trinidad and Tobago | 100.0% | 5 of 5 |
| AICPA Privacy Management Framework (PMF) United States (AICPA) | 19.2% | 5 of 26 |
| Azerbaijan Law on Personal Data (2010) Azerbaijan | 33.3% | 5 of 15 |
| ISO/IEC 27011:2024 International | 5.1% | 5 of 99 |
| Saudi Arabia PDPL Saudi Arabia | 13.5% | 5 of 37 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ยท
The index