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 8 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.
- Board or executive committee charter with security or risk remit
- RACI matrix for accountable owners
- Process owner attestation
- Tooling configuration export
- Meeting minutes referencing the control
- Training material referencing the control
What closing it also buys you
The 8 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.
ISO/IEC 23894:20239
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.09
SSAE 182
SOC 211
ISO/IEC 27557:202214
IATF 16949:20164
Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8)13
NIST Privacy Framework75
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 51
NRC 10 CFR 73.5415
NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security62
FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)10
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 9.9% | 12 of 121 |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 United States | 9.4% | 10 of 106 |
| SSAE 18 United States (AICPA attestation standards; every CPA attestation engagement, including SOC 1, SOC 2 and SOC 3) | 2.6% | 8 of 308 |
| SOC 2 United States | 11.5% | 7 of 61 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC) | 14.6% | 6 of 41 |
| IATF 16949:2016 Global (IATF member OEM supply chains; organizations manufacturing automotive products for automotive customers) | 4.6% | 6 of 130 |
| Singapore Government Instruction Manual on ICT&SS Management (IM8) Singapore (GovTech) | 13.6% | 6 of 44 |
| NIST Privacy Framework United States | 75.0% | 6 of 8 |
| NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 United States | 1.9% | 6 of 320 |
| NRC 10 CFR 73.54 United States | 15.2% | 5 of 33 |
| NIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security United States | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) United States (FTC-jurisdiction financial institutions) | 10.6% | 5 of 47 |
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