3 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
UK Bribery Act 2010 Evidence & Implementation Kit
This is the complete documentation set: an adopt-ready artifact for every control in policy and procedure text you edit rather than draft, and the evidence checklist an auditor asks for against each.
See what is in it, $249
The same set every buyer of this kit receives. Nothing here is produced on request.
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.
- Consent capture mechanism design records
- Consent log with timestamp and purpose linkage
- Withdrawal workflow evidence
- Privacy notice version aligned to consent text
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)10
UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code)25
GDPR12
Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 201180
Tanzania Personal Data Protection Act (Draft)17
Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)16
SASB Standards4
Oregon Consumer Privacy Act37
NIST Privacy Framework37
Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL)25
Barbados Data Protection Act 201913
ISO/IEC 29100:20244
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 | 10.7% | 6 of 56 |
| UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code) United Kingdom | 25.0% | 5 of 20 |
| GDPR European Union | 12.5% | 5 of 40 |
| Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 2011 Trinidad and Tobago | 80.0% | 4 of 5 |
| Tanzania Personal Data Protection Act (Draft) Tanzania | 17.4% | 4 of 23 |
| Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) Armenia | 16.7% | 3 of 18 |
| SASB Standards International | 4.3% | 3 of 69 |
| Oregon Consumer Privacy Act United States - Oregon | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| NIST Privacy Framework United States | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL) United Arab Emirates | 25.0% | 3 of 12 |
| Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 Barbados | 13.0% | 3 of 23 |
| ISO/IEC 29100:2024 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 4.5% | 3 of 67 |
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