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 10 controls across our corpus
BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety Issue 9 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.
- Information security policy
- Policy review log
- Roles and responsibilities matrix
- Authority contact register
- Food safety policy signed by senior management
- Management review minutes
What closing it also buys you
The 10 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.
NRC 10 CFR 73.5415
DAMA-DMBOK210
ISO/IEC 27557:20229
Annex 11 to EU GMP23
ISO/IEC 27011:20244
ISO/SAE 214348
ISO 27018:20193
MARS-E50
ISO/IEC 27004:20163
UK Bribery Act 201015
Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 201160
PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products33
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| NRC 10 CFR 73.54 United States | 15.2% | 5 of 33 |
| DAMA-DMBOK2 International (DAMA International) | 10.9% | 5 of 46 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC) | 9.8% | 4 of 41 |
| Annex 11 to EU GMP European Union (EMA/EC) | 23.5% | 4 of 17 |
| ISO/IEC 27011:2024 International | 4.0% | 4 of 99 |
| ISO/SAE 21434 International | 8.0% | 4 of 50 |
| ISO 27018:2019 International | 3.4% | 4 of 117 |
| MARS-E United States | 50.0% | 4 of 8 |
| ISO/IEC 27004:2016 International | 3.1% | 3 of 97 |
| UK Bribery Act 2010 United Kingdom (SFO) | 15.0% | 3 of 20 |
| Trinidad and Tobago Data Protection Act 2011 Trinidad and Tobago | 60.0% | 3 of 5 |
| PIC/S Guide to Good Manufacturing Practice for Medicinal Products International (PIC/S — 54 member authorities) | 33.3% | 3 of 9 |
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