CMMC 2.0ISO 27002:2022

CMMC 2.0 covers 50.5% of ISO 27002:2022

47 of the 93 controls in ISO 27002:2022 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CMMC 2.0. 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.

50.5%
of the target already covered
47
controls evidenced
46
genuine gaps
32
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

ISO 27002:2022 has 93 controls. Holding CMMC 2.0 already evidences 47 of them, so the work in front of you is 46 controls, not 93, which is 49% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27002:2022 your CMMC 2.0 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.

135 candidate mappings were examined and 34 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.

Physical controls9 of 14 evidenced, 5 to do
People controls5 of 8 evidenced, 3 to do
Technological controls20 of 34 evidenced, 14 to do
Organizational controls13 of 37 evidenced, 24 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.

PS.L2-3.9.25.11argued against and upheld
Return of assets

Personnel action safeguards require system related property to be retrieved on termination.

MP.L2-3.8.45.13argued against and upheld
Labelling of information

Marking media with CUI markings and distribution limitations is labelling of information.

AC.L2-3.1.25.15argued against and upheld
Access control

Limiting access to permitted transactions and functions is access control enforcement.

AC.L2-3.1.15.15argued against and upheld
Access control

Limiting system access to authorized users is the access control rule set.

IA.L2-3.5.55.16argued against and upheld
Identity management

Preventing reuse of identifiers for a defined period is identity management practice.

IA.L2-3.5.15.16argued against and upheld
Identity management

Identifying system users, processes and devices is the identity lifecycle evidence.

IA.L2-3.5.75.17argued against and upheld
Authentication information

Minimum password complexity and character change on creation governs authentication information.

IA.L2-3.5.105.17argued against and upheld
Authentication information

Storing and transmitting only cryptographically protected passwords protects authentication information.

Claims that did not hold

32 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.

PE.L2-3.10.15.15
Access control

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

AC.L2-3.1.55.15
Access control

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.57.1
Physical security perimeters

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.37.1
Physical security perimeters

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.27.1
Physical security perimeters

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.17.2
Physical entry

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.57.3
Securing offices, rooms and facilities

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

PE.L2-3.10.27.3
Securing offices, rooms and facilities

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

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