7 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 7 controls across our corpus
BSI IT-Grundschutz 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.
- ROPA per processing operation
- DPIA reports for high-risk
- Privacy by Design embedded in SDLC
- Annual training records + role-based
- Encarregado designation records + ANPD Resolution CD/ANPD 2/2022 compliance
- RIPD (Brazilian DPIA) reports
What closing it also buys you
The 13 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.
GDPR29
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)13
Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018)42
Barbados Data Protection Act 201926
Bahrain PDPL20
FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314)54
Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA)75
Nebraska Data Privacy Act75
Privacy Act 1988 (Australia)62
Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)33
Azure Security Benchmark9
Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act62
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| GDPR European Union | 29.6% | 8 of 27 |
| NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) United States (NIST) | 13.5% | 7 of 52 |
| Austria Data Protection Act (Datenschutzgesetz, DSG, amended 2018) Austria | 42.9% | 6 of 14 |
| Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 Barbados | 26.1% | 6 of 23 |
| Bahrain PDPL Bahrain | 20.7% | 6 of 29 |
| FTC GLBA Safeguards Rule (16 CFR Part 314) United States (FTC) | 54.5% | 6 of 11 |
| Nigeria Data Protection Act 2023 (NDPA) Nigeria | 75.0% | 6 of 8 |
| Nebraska Data Privacy Act United States - Nebraska | 75.0% | 6 of 8 |
| Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) Australia | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
| Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) United States | 33.3% | 5 of 15 |
| Azure Security Benchmark International | 9.3% | 5 of 54 |
| Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act United States - Iowa | 62.5% | 5 of 8 |
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