AWS Well-Architected Security PillarHIPAA Security Rule

AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar covers 31.3% of HIPAA Security Rule

21 of the 67 controls in HIPAA Security Rule are already satisfied by evidence you collected for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 46 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.

31.3%

of the target already covered

controls evidenced

genuine gaps

claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of HIPAA Security Rule your AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar 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.

64 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.

Technical10 of 12 evidenced, 2 to do

Administrative11 of 32 evidenced, 21 to do

Physical0 of 12 evidenced, 12 to do

Organizational0 of 6 evidenced, 6 to do

Policies and Procedures0 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.

SEC 4: How do you detect and investigate security events? | SEC04-BP03164.308(a)(1)(ii)(D)argued against and upheld

Information System Activity Review (Required)

Correlated, enriched alerts triaged by analysts are the activity review an assessor tests.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP06164.308(a)(3)(i)argued against and upheld

Workforce Security (Standard)

HR-driven joiner mover leaver provisioning is the operative workforce access control.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP06164.308(a)(3)(ii)(C)argued against and upheld

Termination Procedures (Addressable)

Access revocation tied to leaver events is exactly the termination procedure tested.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP02164.308(a)(4)(i)argued against and upheld

Information Access Management (Standard)

Least privilege policies implement the minimum necessary access this standard requires.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP01164.308(a)(4)(i)argued against and upheld

Information Access Management (Standard)

Documenting who may access what under which conditions is the access authorization artefact.

SEC 5: How do you protect your network resources? | SEC05-BP01164.308(a)(4)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld

Isolating Health Care Clearinghouse Functions (Required if applicable)

Segmented network layers isolate the data tier from the rest of the organisation.

SEC 1: How do you securely operate your workload? | SEC01-BP01164.308(a)(4)(ii)(A)argued against and upheld

Isolating Health Care Clearinghouse Functions (Required if applicable)

Separate accounts and organizational boundaries evidence isolation of ePHI from the wider organisation.

SEC 3: How do you manage permissions for people and machines? | SEC03-BP02164.308(a)(4)(ii)(B)argued against and upheld

Access Authorization (Addressable)

IAM policies granting specific actions to programs and processes are the granting mechanism.

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