CMMC 2.0 covers 28.6% of NIS2 Directive
8 of the 28 controls in NIS2 Directive are already satisfied by evidence you collected for CMMC 2.0. 20 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 NIS2 Directive 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.
40 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.
Periodic risk assessment of systems and the harm they create is the risk analysis limb.
A maintained system security plan is the codified set of security decisions this point requires.
Testing the response capability is the evidence that it functions rather than exists on paper.
Preparation, detection, analysis, containment, recovery and user response is exactly incident handling.
Flaws identified, reported and corrected in a timely period is the vulnerability handling limb.
Architectural design, development techniques and engineering principles promoting security is the development limb.
Changes tracked, reviewed, approved and logged keeps maintenance from reintroducing weakness.
Continuous control monitoring keeps effectiveness known between assessments.
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