4 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 8 controls across our corpus
Aged Care Quality Standards Australia 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.
- Signed and dated policy set with version history
- Annual review and approval records
- Process owner attestation
- Tooling configuration export
- BCP and DR plan with documented RTO and RPO
- Backup restore test reports
What closing it also buys you
The 9 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.
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.07
ISO/IEC 23894:20235
SSAE 181
NRC 10 CFR 73.5415
FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)10
ISO/IEC 27557:20226
SOC 28
Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)11
NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security50
Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA)8
Nebraska Data Privacy Act50
IATF 16949:20163
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 United States | 7.5% | 8 of 106 |
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 5.8% | 7 of 121 |
| SSAE 18 United States (AICPA attestation standards; every CPA attestation engagement, including SOC 1, SOC 2 and SOC 3) | 1.9% | 6 of 308 |
| NRC 10 CFR 73.54 United States | 15.2% | 5 of 33 |
| FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) United States (FTC-jurisdiction financial institutions) | 10.6% | 5 of 47 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 6.5% | 5 of 77 |
| SOC 2 United States | 8.2% | 5 of 61 |
| Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) Singapore (GovTech) | 11.4% | 5 of 44 |
| NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security United States | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) Nigeria | 8.0% | 4 of 50 |
| Nebraska Data Privacy Act United States - Nebraska | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| IATF 16949:2016 Global (IATF member OEM supply chains; organizations manufacturing automotive products for automotive customers) | 3.1% | 4 of 130 |
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