APRA CPS 220 Risk Management covers 16% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
17 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for APRA CPS 220 Risk Management. 89 are genuine gaps. Every claim below was judged against both control sets and then argued against; the ones that did not survive are published further down with the reason each failed.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 your APRA CPS 220 Risk Management evidence satisfies. The reverse pair is a different number, often very different, because a security standard has enormous depth for access control and almost none for lawful basis or data subject rights.
74 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-19, review level machine verified. Mappings were judged by Claude Code rather than read line by line by a practitioner. Every claim shows its reasoning so you can check it. Ask and a practitioner will review this pair.
Where the gaps are
Coverage is never evenly spread. A source standard usually satisfies one part of a target almost completely and barely touches another, and which part is which is the thing worth knowing before you plan the work.
Theme level, not control level, deliberately. The per-control list of what is evidenced and what is a gap is the report itself, so publishing it here would be publishing the thing being sold.
Claims that held
A sample. Each one names the control whose evidence does the work, the control it satisfies, and why.
Requires mechanisms for monitoring and ensuring ongoing compliance with all prudential requirements.
Review must assess whether the framework is implemented, effective and consistent with board appetite.
Audit reviews compliance with and effectiveness of the framework at least annually.
Comprehensive triennial review tests appropriateness, effectiveness and adequacy of the whole framework.
Effectiveness of the framework is independently reviewed and reported to the board audit committee.
Board approved risk management strategy establishes agreed risk management objectives.
Appetite statement must state maximum tolerable level per risk as quantitative limits.
Mandates a clear board approved risk appetite statement covering all material risks.
Claims that did not hold
Nothing proposed for this pair was rejected in review. That is unusual and worth knowing rather than hiding: it means the candidate set was small and every candidate held.
The full report
Everything above is a sample. The report is every evidenced control and every gap, with the reasoning and the source document behind each one, in a form you can hand to an assessor. $299, emailed immediately.
Buy this crosswalk