6 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 16 controls across our corpus
ISO 50001:2018 Energy 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.
- IMS scope statement signed by leadership
- Trend and foresight scan report
- PESTEL/SWOT analysis covering innovation landscape
- Strategic intelligence brief
- Competitor innovation benchmark
- Innovation context register
What closing it also buys you
The 16 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 23894:20234
NRC 10 CFR 73.5415
ISO 45001:20185
ISO/IEC 42001:20233
ISO 22301:20195
ISO 37301:20215
ISO 50001:20184
ISO 14001:20156
ISO 9001:20154
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 |
|---|
| ISO/IEC 23894:2023 International | 4.1% | 5 of 121 |
| NRC 10 CFR 73.54 United States | 15.2% | 5 of 33 |
| ISO 45001:2018 International | 5.5% | 3 of 55 |
| ISO/IEC 42001:2023 International | 3.6% | 3 of 83 |
| ISO 22301:2019 International | 5.3% | 3 of 57 |
| ISO 37301:2021 International | 5.9% | 3 of 51 |
| ISO 50001:2018 International | 4.5% | 3 of 66 |
| ISO 14001:2015 International | 6.4% | 3 of 47 |
| ISO 9001:2015 International | 4.2% | 3 of 71 |
| 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