HIPAA Security Rule covers 40.6% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0
43 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for HIPAA Security Rule. 63 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
NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 has 106 controls. Holding HIPAA Security Rule already evidences 43 of them, so the work in front of you is 63 controls, not 106, which is 59% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. 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.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 43 controls of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 you do not have to implement again, which is $6.95 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 43 already evidenced are | 172 hours | 344 hours | 688 hours |
| and the 63 remaining are | 252 hours | 504 hours | 1,008 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.
109 candidate mappings were examined and 36 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.
Regular review of audit logs and access reports analyses adverse events.
Identifying suspected or known incidents is the act of declaring an incident.
Monitoring log in attempts and reporting discrepancies watches personnel activity.
Activity review across systems holding protected data monitors technology usage.
Criticality analysis identifies which applications and services matter most.
Criticality analysis supports other contingency components by naming dependencies.
Periodic technical and nontechnical evaluation is how programme performance is evaluated.
Reasonable and appropriate documented policies establish the risk management policy.
Claims that did not hold
33 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.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by Claude Code, Claude Max plan. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by Claude Code, Claude Max plan. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
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.
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