Two duties travel together in this point. The first is that security is built into how systems are acquired, developed and maintained: security requirements set before purchase or build, secure development practice, change control, and maintenance that does not quietly reintroduce weakness. The second is vulnerability handling and disclosure, meaning the entity can receive a vulnerability report about its own products or systems, triage it, fix it on a timescale that reflects severity, and handle disclosure. A published route for a finder to reach the entity is the part most often missing, and its absence is visible from outside. Note that the coordinator role and the European vulnerability database in Article 12 belong to the CSIRTs and ENISA; what binds the entity is its own handling and disclosure capability.
NIS2 Directive Art.21.2.e 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 0 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.