C5 (Germany) covers 54.1% of SOC 2
33 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for C5 (Germany). 28 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 C5 (Germany) 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.
110 candidate mappings were examined and 3 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.
C5 gives the customer the means to monitor and steer the system resources allocated to it.
C5 monitors resource consumption and service provisioning against the contractual agreements and agreed service levels.
C5 forecasts personnel and IT capacity demand, identifies usage trends and prevents overload so customer commitments hold.
C5 fixes backup scope, frequency and retention against recovery targets, mandates encryption of backups and recovery testing.
C5 requires N plus one power and cooling, sized UPS and generators tested annually and protected cabling inspected biennially.
C5 requires ninety minute fire sections, early detection with automatic voltage release, extinguishing systems and brigade alarm transmission.
C5 reviews, updates and tests the impact analysis and continuity plans at least annually and after significant change.
C5 tests restore procedures at least annually against the defined maximum downtime and permissible data loss.
Claims that did not hold
3 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 requires the customer be notified of provider access to unencrypted data; it neither identifies nor protects confidential information
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 requires the customer be notified of provider access to unencrypted data; it authorises, modifies or removes no access based on role
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
judged against C5 criterion titles before the framework carried requirement text; does not hold against the real criterion; C5-IDM-07 notifies the cloud customer of provider access to its data; it gives no data subject any right to access their own personal information
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
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