Cross-Framework Mapping

Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012)vsFDA 21 CFR Part 11

See exactly how Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) controls map to FDA 21 CFR Part 11. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

3
Controls Mapped
8
Gaps Found
9%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) maps to FDA 21 CFR Part 11 with 9% coverage across 1 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 11 Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) controls identifies 10 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Georgia DPL: Sectoral Coordination, EU-Accession + CoE Convention 108+ and 2024-2025 Status.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 11 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 3 of 3 mapped controls across 1 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

Georgia DPL: Personal Data Protection Service (PDPS), Enforcement and Sanctions(3 mappings)

GeDPL-PDPS-Enforcement-SanctionsPersonal Data Protection Service (PDPS), Enforcement Powers and Sanctions3 targets
Part11.30Controls for open systems (21 CFR §11.30)
Part11.AuditTrailAudit trail requirements - secure computer-generated time-stamped (21 CFR §11.10(e))
Part11.RecordRetentionRecord protection + retention + readiness for inspection (21 CFR §11.10(b) + (c))

Related Comparisons

Other Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) comparisons

Other FDA 21 CFR Part 11 comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 718 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 718 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (330K+)
  • 824 compliance assessments
  • 3 AI queries & searches per day
Get Started Free
Recommended
$49/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 Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) and FDA 21 CFR Part 11?

Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) has 11 controls across its framework, while FDA 21 CFR Part 11 covers 13 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 1 overlapping controls (9% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Georgia DPL: Sectoral Coordination, EU-Accession + CoE Convention 108+ and 2024-2025 Status, where 5 Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) controls have no direct FDA 21 CFR Part 11 equivalent.

How many controls map between Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) and FDA 21 CFR Part 11?

Of 11 total Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) controls, 1 map directly to FDA 21 CFR Part 11 controls — representing 9% coverage. The remaining 10 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) to FDA 21 CFR Part 11?

10 Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) controls have no direct equivalent in FDA 21 CFR Part 11. The highest concentration of gaps is in Georgia DPL: Sectoral Coordination, EU-Accession + CoE Convention 108+ and 2024-2025 Status 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 Georgia Law on Personal Data Protection (2012) and FDA 21 CFR Part 11?

The domain with the highest gap count is Georgia DPL: Sectoral Coordination, EU-Accession + CoE Convention 108+ and 2024-2025 Status (5 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.