TheArtOfService
Cross-Framework Mapping

Japan AI GuidelinesvsEASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation

See exactly how Japan AI Guidelines controls map to EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation. Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

11
Controls Mapped
2
Gaps Found
31%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

Japan AI Guidelines maps to EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation with 31% coverage across 4 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 13 Japan AI Guidelines controls identifies 9 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in JP AI Third-Party + Supply Chain.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 13 controls analysed | 718 frameworks | 330K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 11 of 11 mapped controls across 4 domains. Sign up to explore all 330K+ mappings across 718 frameworks.

JP AI Continuous Monitoring + Lifecycle(3 mappings)

JP-AIG-Continuous-Monitoring-Lifecycle-Model-Evaluation-Performance-Drift-Post-DeploymentJapan AI Guidelines Continuous Monitoring + AI System Lifecycle Management + Model Evaluation + Performance Drift + Concept Drift + Post-Deployment + Retraining Triggers + Safe Update + Decommissioning + Model Card Versioning3 targets
→IS.D.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.220Information Security Risk Management

JP AI Fairness + Bias(3 mappings)

JP-AIG-Fairness-Bias-Detection-Mitigation-Inclusive-AI-Discrimination-Prevention-10-Principles-2019-HeritageJapan AI Guidelines Fairness + Bias Detection + Mitigation + Inclusive AI + Discrimination Prevention + 10 Principles 2019 Heritage + Protected Attributes + Disparate Impact + Statistical Parity + Counterfactual Fairness3 targets
→IS.D.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.220Information Security Risk Management

JP AI Safety + AISI(3 mappings)

JP-AIG-Safety-Validation-Testing-Robustness-AISI-AI-Safety-Institute-Pre-Deployment-Evaluation-Red-TeamingJapan AI Guidelines Safety + Validation + Testing + Robustness + AISI AI Safety Institute (14 Feb 2024) + Pre-Deployment Evaluation + Red Teaming + Capability Evaluations + AI Incident Database + Safe Deployment + AI Safety Reports3 targets
→IS.D.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.210Information Security Risk Treatment
→IS.I.OR.220Information Security Risk Management

JP AI Scope + Society 5.0 + Strategy(2 mappings)

JP-AIG-Scope-METI-MIC-AI-Guidelines-Business-v1.0-April2024-Society-5.0-Cabinet-Office-AI-Strategy-CouncilJapan AI Guidelines Scope + METI/MIC AI Guidelines for Business v1.0 (April 2024) + Society 5.0 + Cabinet Office AI Strategy Council + 10 Principles 2019 Heritage + Education + Literacy + Fair Competition + Innovation Principles2 targets
→IS.D.OR.205Information Security Risk Assessment
→IS.I.OR.205Information Security Risk Assessment

Related Comparisons

Other Japan AI Guidelines comparisons

Japan AI Guidelines vs ISO/IEC 23894:20236 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs NIST Privacy Framework5 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs ISO/IEC 27557:2022 - Organisational Privacy Risk Management5 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs IEC 624435 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)5 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs API 11645 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs ISO 270195 mappingsJapan AI Guidelines vs UK Defence Standard 05-138 - Cyber Security for Defence Suppliers4 mappings

Other EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation comparisons

NIST SP 800-171A Rev 3 - Assessing CUI Security Requirements vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation9 mappingsNRF Cybersecurity and Data Privacy Framework (National Retail Federation) vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsNIST SP 800-82 Revision 3: Guide to Industrial Control Systems (ICS) Security vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsNIS2 Directive vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsNERC CIP vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsMTCS (Singapore) vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsAPI 1164 vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappingsAnnex 11 to EU GMP - Computerised Systems vs EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation8 mappings

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 →

Popular framework comparisons

NIST CSF vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs NIST CSFCMMC vs NIST 800-53FedRAMP vs NIST 800-53NIST CSF vs SOC 2HIPAA vs NIST 800-53ISO 27001 vs SOC 2ISO 27001 vs ISO 27701

What are the key differences between Japan AI Guidelines and EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation?

Japan AI Guidelines has 13 controls across its framework, while EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation covers 34 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 4 overlapping controls (31% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in JP AI Third-Party + Supply Chain, where 1 Japan AI Guidelines controls have no direct EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation equivalent.

How many controls map between Japan AI Guidelines and EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation?

Of 13 total Japan AI Guidelines controls, 4 map directly to EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation controls — representing 31% coverage. The remaining 9 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping Japan AI Guidelines to EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation?

9 Japan AI Guidelines controls have no direct equivalent in EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation. The highest concentration of gaps is in JP AI Third-Party + Supply Chain with 1 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 Japan AI Guidelines and EASA Part-IS - Information Security in Aviation?

The domain with the highest gap count is JP AI Third-Party + Supply Chain (1 gaps). Export the full domain-by-domain gap breakdown via the Professional tier to generate a prioritised remediation roadmap.

Related Resources

How to Map Controls Across Frameworks|Multi-Framework Compliance Guide|Compliance Glossary

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.