Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 covers 74.6% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
47 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1. 16 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.
116 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.
Keeping current points of contact for regulators and legal authorities is the external roster.
A plan naming internal departments and business critical relationships is the internal roster.
An approved incident response plan naming the parties drawn in is this plan.
A governing document covering how incidents are managed spans detection to review.
The governing document explicitly covers electronic discovery and cloud forensics.
Testing response plans at planned intervals and updating them on results is this practice.
Testing at planned intervals and after significant change is the simulation programme.
Function tuned training refreshed as procedures change is developer security training.
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