Cross-Framework Mapping

NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668)vsArmenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)

See exactly how NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls map to Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015). Pre-computed mappings, identified gaps, and coverage analysis.

4
Controls Mapped
4
Gaps Found
25%
Coverage

According to the TheArtOfService Compliance Knowledge Graph:

NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) maps to Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) with 25% coverage across 2 directly mapped controls. Analysis of 8 NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls identifies 6 compliance gaps — primarily concentrated in Cross-State Compliance.

Source: TheArtOfService Knowledge Graph | 8 controls analysed | 723 frameworks | 332K+ cross-framework mappings

Control Mappings

Showing 4 of 4 mapped controls across 2 domains. Sign up to explore all 332K+ mappings across 723 frameworks.

Governance and Scope(1 mappings)

NAIC-1NAIC Model Law Adoption, Scope, and Licensee Definitions
AM-DPA-10Retention and Deletion

Incident Response(3 mappings)

NAIC-6Cybersecurity Event Investigation and Notification - Sections 6 and 73 targets
AM-DPA-15Breach Response and Notification
AM-DPA-16Staff Training and Confidentiality
AM-DPA-17PDPA Inspections and Cooperation

Related Comparisons

Other NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) comparisons

Other Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) comparisons

Stop Paying Consultants to Read Spreadsheets

AI-powered compliance intelligence across 723 frameworks — at a fraction of consulting costs.

$0/forever

Free

  • 723 framework browser
  • Cross-framework mappings (332K+)
  • 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 NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) and Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)?

NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) has 8 controls across its framework, while Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) covers 18 controls. Direct mapping analysis identifies 2 overlapping controls (25% coverage). The frameworks diverge most significantly in Cross-State Compliance, where 1 NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls have no direct Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) equivalent.

How many controls map between NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) and Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)?

Of 8 total NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls, 2 map directly to Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) controls — representing 25% coverage. The remaining 6 controls represent compliance gaps requiring additional documentation or compensating controls to satisfy both frameworks simultaneously.

What are the compliance gaps when mapping NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) to Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)?

6 NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) controls have no direct equivalent in Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015). The highest concentration of gaps is in Cross-State Compliance 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 NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) and Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015)?

The domain with the highest gap count is Cross-State Compliance (1 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.