Where two or more controllers jointly determine the purposes and means of processing, determine their respective responsibilities for compliance in a transparent manner by an arrangement between them, unless those responsibilities are already determined by Union or Member State law, covering in particular the exercise of the data subject's rights and each party's duty to provide the Article 13 and 14 information. The arrangement may designate a contact point for data subjects. It must duly reflect the parties' respective roles and relationships towards data subjects, and its essence must be made available to the data subject. Irrespective of the terms of the arrangement, a data subject may exercise their rights in respect of and against each of the controllers.
This control maps to 8 controls across 6 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.
GDPR GDPR-Art.26 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of GDPR your existing evidence covers. Hold ISO 27701:2019 and 21 of 41 GDPR controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 0 were rejected on the ISO 27701:2019 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 8 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.