APRA CPS 234 covers 27.9% of SOC 2
17 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for APRA CPS 234. 44 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 SOC 2 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.
39 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.
Assets classified by sensitivity, which identifies and maintains the inventory of confidential information.
Board carries ultimate responsibility for information security and must ensure it stays proportionate to threats.
Roles and responsibilities defined for Board, senior management and holders of decision, approval and oversight duties.
Policy framework directs responsibilities of every party obliged to maintain security, establishing individual accountability.
Policy framework communicates security responsibilities internally to staff, contractors and consultants.
Assets classified by criticality and sensitivity reflecting incident impact, which is risk identification and analysis.
Testing programme sufficiency reassessed on any material change to assets or business environment.
Capability actively maintained as vulnerabilities, threats, assets and business environment change.
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