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
German Supply Chain Due Diligence Act (LkSG) 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.
- Role inventory + RACI
- Metrics + management review
- Operational controls + tooling investment
- Examination response procedures
- Tooling + metrics dashboard
- Annual cycle documentation
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.
BSI IT-Grundschutz7
API 11646
ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents18
FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT)1
IACS Unified Requirements E26/E2726
Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023)8
OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM)66
Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements50
ISO/IEC 30111:20195
Annex 11 to EU GMP23
ISO/IEC 29134:20234
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| BSI IT-Grundschutz Germany (used across the German-speaking countries and by German public bodies under the UP Bund) | 7.8% | 14 of 180 |
| API 1164 United States (API; referenced by the TSA Pipeline Security Guidelines and used internationally) | 6.1% | 10 of 163 |
| ASD Strategies to Mitigate Cyber Security Incidents Australia | 18.9% | 7 of 37 |
| FFIEC Cybersecurity Assessment Tool (CAT) United States (FFIEC member agencies; voluntary self-assessment for financial institutions) | 1.0% | 6 of 595 |
| IACS Unified Requirements E26/E27 International (IACS — 12 classification societies) | 26.3% | 5 of 19 |
| Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023) Switzerland | 8.9% | 5 of 56 |
| OWASP DevSecOps Maturity Model (DSOMM) International | 66.7% | 4 of 6 |
| Nevada Gaming Control Board Cybersecurity Requirements United States — Nevada | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| ISO/IEC 30111:2019 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27); adopted as EN ISO/IEC 30111:2020 and nationally (DIN EN ISO/IEC 30111:2020 held) | 5.8% | 4 of 69 |
| FFIEC IT Examination Handbook United States (FRB, FDIC, NCUA, OCC and state banking supervisors) | 0.7% | 4 of 538 |
| Annex 11 to EU GMP European Union (EMA/EC) | 23.5% | 4 of 17 |
| ISO/IEC 29134:2023 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27); adopted as CSA ISO/IEC 29134:24 and nationally | 4.7% | 4 of 85 |
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