Consent cannot be inferred merely because an electronic address has been published. The only exception: where the address lets the public reach a particular employee, director, officer, partner, office-holder, self-employed person, or the holder of a position or performer of a function in an organisation; it is conspicuously published; publication can reasonably be taken to have been agreed by that person or organisation; and it is not accompanied by a statement that unsolicited commercial messages are not wanted. Then consent is taken to exist only for messages relevant to that person's work-related business, functions or duties, or to that office, position, function or role.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.