Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR)SOC 2

Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR) covers 47.5% of SOC 2

29 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Australia Consumer Data Right - Banking (CDR). 32 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.

47.5%
of the target already covered
29
controls evidenced
32
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of SOC 2 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.

55 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.

C - Confidentiality2 of 2 evidenced
P - Privacy11 of 18 evidenced, 7 to do
CC - Common Criteria (Security)16 of 33 evidenced, 17 to do
A - Availability0 of 3 evidenced, 3 to do
PI - Processing Integrity0 of 5 evidenced, 5 to do

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.

AUCDR-IS-STEP2SOC2-C1.1argued against and upheld
Confidential information is identified and protected during receipt, processing, storage

Step 2 requires the CDR data environment be assessed, defined and documented.

AUCDR-PS-12SOC2-C1.2argued against and upheld
Confidential information is disposed of securely

Privacy Safeguard 12 requires redundant CDR data be destroyed or de-identified.

AUCDR-IS-STEP1SOC2-CC1.3argued against and upheld
COSO principle 3: Management establishes structures, reporting lines, and authorities

Step 1 requires documented practices and responsibilities including those of senior management.

AUCDR-IS-STEP3SOC2-CC3.2argued against and upheld
COSO principle 7: Identifies risks and analyzes to determine how managed

Step 3 requires the capability be adapted to the threats and the potential consumer harm.

AUCDR-IS-STEP2SOC2-CC3.4argued against and upheld
COSO principle 9: Identifies and assesses changes that could impact internal controls

Step 2 requires boundaries be reviewed on becoming aware of material change.

AUCDR-IS-STEP4SOC2-CC4.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 16: Selects and develops ongoing and separate evaluations

Step 4 requires a testing program using independent skilled testers, reviewed annually.

AUCDR-IS-STEP4SOC2-CC4.2argued against and upheld
COSO principle 17: Evaluates and communicates deficiencies in a timely manner

Step 4 requires control deficiencies be escalated to senior management.

AUCDR-IS-STEP3SOC2-CC5.1argued against and upheld
COSO principle 10: Selects and develops control activities to mitigate risks

Step 3 requires a control set adapted to assessed risk rather than a fixed list.

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