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 6 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.
- Consent capture records with timestamps and scope
- Data subject request log with response evidence
- Privacy notice versions with change history
- Data protection impact assessment register and outputs
- Appointment and reporting line evidence for the data protection advisor
- FDPIC correspondence and notification records
What closing it also buys you
The 6 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.
GDPR15
NIST Privacy Framework62
Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA)10
Nebraska Data Privacy Act62
UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code)25
Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 201180
Tanzania Personal Data Protection Act (Draft)17
Oregon Consumer Privacy Act50
NIST SP 800-12250
New Hampshire Data Privacy Act50
Malaysia PDPA 201050
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)26
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| GDPR European Union | 15.0% | 6 of 40 |
| NIST Privacy Framework United States | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) Nigeria | 10.0% | 5 of 50 |
| Nebraska Data Privacy Act United States - Nebraska | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| UK Age Appropriate Design Code (Children's Code) United Kingdom | 25.0% | 5 of 20 |
| 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 |
| Oregon Consumer Privacy Act United States - Oregon | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| NIST SP 800-122 United States | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| New Hampshire Data Privacy Act United States - New Hampshire | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| Malaysia PDPA 2010 Malaysia | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) United States | 26.7% | 4 of 15 |
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