APRA CPS 234 covers 11.1% of CIS Controls v8
17 of the 153 controls in CIS Controls v8 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for APRA CPS 234. 136 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 CIS Controls v8 your APRA CPS 234 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.
47 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.
That framework must direct the responsibilities of related parties and third parties.
Third party assessment is scaled to incident consequences, which classifies providers by criticality.
Both classify by sensitivity and criticality including assets held by third parties.
Both require service providers assessed in proportion to the consequences of failure.
Both require evaluation of the design of provider controls over entity assets.
Where third party control testing is relied on, its nature and frequency must be assessed.
Both require ongoing assessment of provider control testing rather than a single review.
Both require internal audit to assess assurance provided by material third parties.
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