Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) covers 9.6% of PCI DSS 4.0
24 of the 249 controls in PCI DSS 4.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR). 225 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.
What this leaves you to do
PCI DSS 4.0 has 249 controls. Holding Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) already evidences 24 of them, so the work in front of you is 225 controls, not 249, which is 90% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 24 controls of PCI DSS 4.0 you do not have to implement again, which is $12.46 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 24 already evidenced are | 96 hours | 192 hours | 384 hours |
| and the 225 remaining are | 900 hours | 1,800 hours | 3,600 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of PCI DSS 4.0 your Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) 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.
35 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.
Control 2 requires firewalls be configured to secure the data environment network.
Control 2 requires firewalls between the data environment and untrusted networks.
Control 1 requires audit logging be enabled across the data environment.
Control 4 requires vulnerabilities be identified and tracked in the data environment.
Step 4 requires a documented testing program run by independent skilled testers.
Step 1 requires a maintained information security policy documented for the personnel it binds.
Step 1 requires the framework and policy be reviewed at least annually.
Step 1 requires documented security responsibilities including those of senior management.
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