HIPAA Security Rule covers 54.2% of APRA CPS 234
13 of the 24 controls in APRA CPS 234 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for HIPAA Security Rule. 11 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
APRA CPS 234 has 24 controls. Holding HIPAA Security Rule already evidences 13 of them, so the work in front of you is 11 controls, not 24, which is 46% 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 APRA CPS 234 your HIPAA Security Rule 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 2026-08-19, 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.
Requires documented appointment, position description and reporting line for the security official role.
Requires a security governance program with defined roles and risk based decision making.
Requires security measures sufficient to reduce risk to a reasonable and appropriate level.
Requires safeguards scaled to entity size, capabilities, infrastructure and criticality of risks.
Requires satisfactory assurances plus due diligence and ongoing monitoring before a third party handles data.
Requires periodic re-evaluation in response to environmental and operational changes affecting security.
Requires continuous monitoring and prioritised treatment as risks and vulnerabilities change.
Requires reasonable and appropriate policies with ownership, version control and review cadence.
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