8 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 9 controls across our corpus
Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 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.
- Annual review
- Supplier inventory + classification
- Risk assessments per supplier
- Contractual cyber clauses
- ENISA coordinated risk assessment alignment
- DORA TPRM cross-walk
What closing it also buys you
The 11 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.
Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR)87
ISO/IEC 27557:202217
NIS2 Directive87
NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205)87
NIST Privacy Framework75
AS9100D9
ISO/IEC 27003:20178
NIST SP 800-171A Rev 317
Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA)62
Nebraska Data Privacy Act62
ISO/IEC 2383711
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)9
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| Nigeria Data Protection Regulation (NDPR) Nigeria | 87.5% | 7 of 8 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC) | 17.1% | 7 of 41 |
| NIS2 Directive European Union | 87.5% | 7 of 8 |
| NIST Post-Quantum Cryptography Standards (FIPS 203, 204, 205) United States (NIST) | 87.5% | 7 of 8 |
| NIST Privacy Framework United States | 75.0% | 6 of 8 |
| AS9100D International (Aerospace) | 9.8% | 6 of 61 |
| ISO/IEC 27003:2017 International | 8.3% | 6 of 72 |
| NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 United States (NIST) | 17.1% | 6 of 35 |
| Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) Nigeria | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| Nebraska Data Privacy Act United States - Nebraska | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| ISO/IEC 23837 International (ISO/IEC) | 11.9% | 5 of 42 |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) United States (NIST) | 9.6% | 5 of 52 |
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