Cross-Framework Mapping

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR)vsGDPR

See exactly how Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls map to GDPR. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

46
Controls Mapped
0
Gaps Found
100%
Coverage

A reviewed coverage crosswalk for this pair is available. See which GDPR controls you already evidence.

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) maps to GDPR with 100% coverage across 24 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 24 Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls identifies 0 compliance gaps, primarily concentrated in Information Security (Schedule 2).

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 24 controls analysed | 686 frameworks | 310K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 20 of 46 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 310K+ mappings across 686 frameworks.

Information Security (Schedule 2)(13 mappings)

AUCDR-IS-1Limit risk of unauthorised access to the CDR data environment
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
AUCDR-IS-2Secure the network and systems within the data environment
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
AUCDR-IS-3Securely manage information assets over their lifecycle
GDPR-Art.25Data protection by design and by default
AUCDR-IS-4Formal vulnerability management program
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
AUCDR-IS-5Limit, prevent, detect and remove malware
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
AUCDR-IS-6Information security training and awareness program
GDPR-Art.39Tasks of the data protection officer
AUCDR-IS-STEP1Step 1 - Define and implement security governance for CDR data
GDPR-Art.24Responsibility of the controller
AUCDR-IS-STEP2Step 2 - Define the boundaries of the CDR data environment
GDPR-Art.30Records of processing activities
AUCDR-IS-STEP3Step 3 - Have and maintain an information security capability2 targets
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
GDPR-Art.35Data protection impact assessment
AUCDR-IS-STEP4Step 4 - Implement a formal controls assessment program
GDPR-Art.32Security of processing
AUCDR-IS-STEP5Step 5 - Manage and report security incidents2 targets
GDPR-Art.33Notification of a personal data breach to the supervisory authority
GDPR-Art.34Communication of a personal data breach to the data subject

Privacy Safeguards(7 mappings)

AUCDR-PS-1Privacy Safeguard 1 - Open and transparent management of CDR data3 targets
GDPR-Art.12Transparent information, communication and modalities for rights
GDPR-Art.13Information to be provided where personal data are collected
GDPR-Art.24Responsibility of the controller
AUCDR-PS-10Privacy Safeguard 10 - Notifying of the disclosure of CDR data3 targets
GDPR-Art.13Information to be provided where personal data are collected
GDPR-Art.15Right of access by the data subject
GDPR-Art.19Notification obligation regarding rectification, erasure or restriction
AUCDR-PS-11Privacy Safeguard 11 - Quality of CDR data
GDPR-Art.16Right to rectification

+26 more mappings

Plus AI-powered gap analysis, compliance advisory, PDF exports, and cross-mapping for all 686 frameworks.

Create Free Account →

Free forever, no credit card required

Coverage crosswalk

The Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) to GDPR crosswalk

The table above lists candidate mappings. A crosswalk answers the narrower question you are probably here for: which GDPR controls your existing Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) work already satisfies, which are real gaps, and the reasoning behind every claim so you can check it. One pair, $299, one time.

Coverage does not run both ways. Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) into GDPR lands at 35%, while GDPR into Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) lands at 58.3%, on the same two control sets. That is not a rounding difference. It is the whole reason these are two separate reports: one asks what your Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) evidence buys you for GDPR, the other asks the reverse.

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) into GDPR
35%

14 of 40 GDPR controls are evidenced by work you have already done for Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR). 26 are genuine gaps.

45.5%Chapter III - Rights of the Data Subject
25%Chapter IV - Controller and Processor
42.9%Chapter II - Principles
33.3%Chapter V - Transfers of Personal Data
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 33 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: GDPR-Art.12 Transparent information, communication and modalities for rights

Data managed openly and transparently under a clearly expressed current policy.

Grounded in AUCDR-PS-1 Privacy Safeguard 1 - Open and transparent management of CDR data. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: GDPR-Art.10 Processing of personal data relating to criminal convictions

Process personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences, or related security measures, only under the control of official authority or where Union or Member State law authorises the processing and provides appropriate...

Every one of the 14 evidenced controls and 26 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

GDPR into Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR)
58.3%

14 of 24 Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls are evidenced by work you have already done for GDPR. 10 are genuine gaps.

76.9%Privacy Safeguards
36.4%Information Security (Schedule 2)
Machine verified. Claude Code on the Max plan, judged in context, signed off 2026-08-20. 39 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed by a pass whose job was to argue against them.Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.

A sample of what the report says

Evidenced: AUCDR-IS-6 Information security training and awareness program

Awareness raising and training of staff involved in processing is a standing duty.

Grounded in GDPR-Art.39 Tasks of the data protection officer. Confidence high, survived the refutation pass.

Gap: AUCDR-IS-1 Limit risk of unauthorised access to the CDR data environment

Have processes to limit the risk of inappropriate or unauthorised access to the CDR data environment, including MFA or equivalent, restriction of administrative privileges, audit logging and monitoring, access security, limiting physical...

Every one of the 14 evidenced controls and 10 gaps in the report carries this much reasoning, so you can check the claim rather than take it on trust.

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) to GDPR
$299
per framework pair, one time
  • 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 100% in the header counts how many Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls carry at least one candidate mapping in the graph, before any review. The crosswalk percentage counts something stricter: how many GDPR 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.

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 686 frameworks, at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 686 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (310K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$149/month

Professional

  • Unlimited AI Compliance Advisory
  • Unlimited full-text search
  • Framework self-assessment
  • PDF, Excel & CSV exports
Start 7-Day Free Trial →

What are the key differences between Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) and GDPR?

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) has 24 controls across its framework, while GDPR covers 40 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 24 overlapping controls (100% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Information Security (Schedule 2), where 0 Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls have no direct GDPR equivalent.

How many controls map between Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) and GDPR?

Of 24 total Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls, 24 map directly to GDPR controls, representing 100% coverage. The remaining 0 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) to GDPR?

0 Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) controls have no direct equivalent in GDPR. The highest concentration of gaps is in Information Security (Schedule 2) with 0 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 Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) and GDPR?

The domain with the highest gap count is Information Security (Schedule 2) (0 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

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.