21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)vsNAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)
See exactly how 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls map to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.
Need this as a report you can hand to an assessor? A coverage crosswalk for this pair can be built to order.
According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:
21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) maps to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) with 4% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 25 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls identifies 31 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Disqualification of Testing Facilities (Subpart K).
Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 25 controls analysed | 692 frameworks | 306K+ cross-framework mappings
Control Mappings
Showing 1 of 1 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 306K+ mappings across 692 frameworks.
Facilities (Subpart C)(1 mappings)
A 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) crosswalk, built to order
The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls your existing 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
This direction has not been through crosswalk review and sign off, so no coverage figure is published for it. Reporting an unreviewed number would be worse than reporting none. It can be built to order at the same price as a pair that is already on the shelf.
If the two frameworks turn out to have too little in common for a crosswalk to help you, we say so and refund it rather than send a number worth nothing.
- Every evidenced control, with the reasoning behind it
- Every gap, with what it requires
- Its level of review stated plainly, not a bare number
Why this page shows two different percentages. The 4% in the header counts how many 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls are actually evidenced, after a pass that argued against each mapping and kept only what survived. They answer different questions and they are not meant to agree.
A crosswalk narrows the work. It does not replace an audit, and your assessor may take a different view on individual controls. Mappings between frameworks are judgements, not text printed in either standard, which is why every claim in the report shows its reasoning. Questions go to support@theartofservice.com.
Related Comparisons
Other 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) comparisons
Other NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) comparisons
Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets
AI-powered compliance intelligence across 692 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.
Free
- ✓ 692 framework browser
- ✓ Cross-framework mappings (306K+)
- ✓ 824 compliance assessments
- ✓ 3 AI queries & searches per day
Professional
- ✓ Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
- ✓ Unlimited full-text search
- ✓ Framework self-assessment
- ✓ PDF, Excel & CSV exports
What are the key differences between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) has 25 controls across its framework, while NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) covers 50 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (4% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Disqualification of Testing Facilities (Subpart K), where 5 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls have no direct NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) equivalent.
How many controls map between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
Of 25 total 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls, 1 map directly to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls, representing 4% coverage. The remaining 31 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.
What are the compliance gaps when mapping 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) to NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
31 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) controls have no direct equivalent in NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668). The highest concentration of gaps is in Disqualification of Testing Facilities (Subpart K) with 5 unmapped controls. These gaps represent areas where additional controls, policies, or documentation must be created to achieve compliance with both frameworks.
Which control domains have the most gaps between 21 CFR Part 58 - Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) and NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)?
The domain with the highest gap count is Disqualification of Testing Facilities (Subpart K) (5 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.
Related Resources
This platform provides educational compliance tools, not legal, regulatory, or professional compliance advice. Cross-framework mappings are AI-assisted interpretations and do not reproduce or replace official standards. Framework names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. Consult qualified professionals for your specific compliance requirements. See our Terms of Service.