The engagement is goal-oriented: the organisation and provider agree the primary goal (the business or mission impact the test is meant to demonstrate, not merely finding unpatched systems), any secondary or compliance goal, and, where relevant, a prior view of the organisation's security maturity so that a vulnerability analysis is chosen ahead of a full penetration test where that gives more value. The risk scoring or grading mechanism to be used (for example a named ranking method) is agreed at this stage so that findings can be scored consistently.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 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 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.