Members of the management body are required to follow training, and the entity is expected to put comparable training in front of its employees regularly. The stated purpose sets the standard: the training has to leave the body able to identify risks and to assess cybersecurity risk-management practices and the effect those practices have on the services the entity provides. That is a judgement bar, not an attendance bar. Generic awareness content aimed at all staff will not reach it, because a board member is being asked to challenge a risk treatment decision rather than avoid a phishing email. Training also needs refreshing as the body changes; a director appointed after the last session is untrained for the purposes of this Article. The employee limb is expressed as an encouragement on Member States to require, so its national transposition is worth reading, but the entity-level expectation is regular and repeated rather than on induction only.
This control maps to 30 controls across 15 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.
NIS2 Directive Art.20.2 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of NIS2 Directive your existing evidence covers. Hold DORA and 17 of 28 NIS2 Directive 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 DORA pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 30 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.