AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar covers 29.5% of SOC 2
18 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar. 43 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 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.
63 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.
Automated discovery and classification maintains an accurate inventory of confidential information.
Protection controls applied per sensitivity level evidence that confidential data is protected throughout processing.
Documented classification scheme identifies confidential data, owners, handling and legal obligations.
Lifecycle management defines retention periods and destruction, the disposal evidence an assessor tests.
Threat modelling identifies and analyses risks to the system and prioritises mitigations by impact.
Annual and post change penetration testing is a separate evaluation of control effectiveness.
Service control policies enforce non negotiable technology boundaries across the organisation.
Standard security controls defined as versioned, tested infrastructure code are general technology controls.
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