EU AI Act covers 57.9% of ISO/IEC 42001:2023
22 of the 38 controls in ISO/IEC 42001:2023 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for EU AI Act. 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.
What this leaves you to do
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 has 38 controls. Holding EU AI Act already evidences 22 of them, so the work in front of you is 16 controls, not 38, which is 42% 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/IEC 42001:2023 your EU AI Act 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.
79 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.
Allocates provider, deployer, importer and distributor responsibilities across the AI value chain.
Quality management system documented in written policies covering AI development, deployment and compliance.
Accountability framework sets out responsibilities of management and staff for every quality aspect.
Internal reporting channels for AI Act infringements, with confidentiality and protection from retaliation.
AI literacy measures calibrated to staff knowledge, experience, education and training.
Fundamental rights impact assessment assesses harm to affected categories of persons before deployment.
Assessment must be documented and its results notified to the market surveillance authority.
Continuous iterative risk process runs across the entire lifecycle covering use and misuse.
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