6 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
AS9100D Aerospace Quality Management System 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.
- Control testing plan
- Test results
- Effectiveness metrics
- Remediation plan
What closing it also buys you
The 1 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.
21 CFR Part 2113
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 38
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 97
PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products22
GS1 Global Standards15
GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard v616
FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR)15
ISO 15189:20224
ICH E6(R3)11
FSSC 220009
SQF Code Edition 92
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| 21 CFR Part 211 United States | 3.8% | 3 of 78 |
| NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 United States (NIST) | 8.6% | 3 of 35 |
| BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 International (GFSI-benchmarked) | 7.7% | 3 of 39 |
| PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products International (PIC/S — 54 member authorities) | 22.2% | 2 of 9 |
| GS1 Global Standards International (GS1 — 116 countries) | 15.4% | 2 of 13 |
| GLOBALG.A.P. Integrated Farm Assurance (IFA) Standard v6 International (GLOBALG.A.P.) | 16.7% | 2 of 12 |
| FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) United States | 15.4% | 2 of 13 |
| ISO 15189:2022 International (ISO) | 4.1% | 2 of 49 |
| PCI DSS 4.0 International | 0.8% | 2 of 249 |
| ICH E6(R3) International (ICH) | 11.1% | 1 of 9 |
| FSSC 22000 International (FSSC Foundation) | 9.1% | 1 of 11 |
| SQF Code Edition 9 International (GFSI-benchmarked) | 2.2% | 1 of 45 |
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 ·
The index