Cyber hygiene is the common baseline the Directive expects everywhere: keeping software and hardware updated, managing configuration of devices, controlling and limiting administrator-level accounts, managing new installations, changing credentials, segmenting networks and backing up data. The recitals also point at zero-trust principles and user awareness as part of the same baseline. Training here is the workforce limb, distinct from the management body training in Article 20(2), and it needs to reach the roles that actually handle the risk rather than being one annual module for everyone. The value of this category to an auditor is that it is measurable: patch currency, privileged account counts and training completion are all countable, and a claim of good hygiene that cannot produce those numbers is not evidenced.
NIS2 Directive Art.21.2.g 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.