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 4 controls across our corpus
Ghana Data Protection Act 2012 (Act 843) 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.
- Role inventory + RACI
- Operational controls + metrics
- Sectoral + dual-regulator engagement
- Sectoral compliance per industry
- Multi-regulator engagement
- Public-sector data governance
What closing it also buys you
The 4 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.
Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML)9
UAE Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) Regulations10
BSI IT-Grundschutz1
ISO/IEC 29134:20233
API 11641
India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 202225
US Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA)7
PCAOB AS 220125
Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023)3
ISO/IEC 27557:20222
SQF Code Edition 94
French Sapin II Law (Law No. 2016-1691)14
Scaled against the framework this reaches furthest into, not against a hundred
percent. Exact figures below.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering (BSA/AML) United States | 9.1% | 4 of 44 |
| UAE Virtual Asset Regulatory Authority (VARA) Regulations United Arab Emirates — Dubai | 10.0% | 3 of 30 |
| BSI IT-Grundschutz Germany (used across the German-speaking countries and by German public bodies under the UP Bund) | 1.7% | 3 of 180 |
| ISO/IEC 29134:2023 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27); adopted as CSA ISO/IEC 29134:24 and nationally | 3.5% | 3 of 85 |
| API 1164 United States (API; referenced by the TSA Pipeline Security Guidelines and used internationally) | 1.8% | 3 of 163 |
| India CERT-In Cyber Security Directions 2022 India | 25.0% | 2 of 8 |
| US Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) United States (Federal / FTC) | 7.1% | 2 of 28 |
| PCAOB AS 2201 United States (PCAOB) | 25.0% | 2 of 8 |
| Switzerland New Federal Act on Data Protection (nFADP/nDSG, 2023) Switzerland | 3.6% | 2 of 56 |
| ISO/IEC 27557:2022 International (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 27) | 2.6% | 2 of 77 |
| SQF Code Edition 9 International (GFSI-benchmarked) | 4.4% | 2 of 45 |
| French Sapin II Law (Law No. 2016-1691) France | 14.3% | 2 of 14 |
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