ISO 22301:2019NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

ISO 22301:2019 covers 25.5% of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0

27 of the 106 controls in NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 22301:2019. 79 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.

25.5%
of the target already covered
27
controls evidenced
79
genuine gaps
54
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 your ISO 22301:2019 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.

113 candidate mappings were examined and 55 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.

RC - Recover4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
RS - Respond6 of 13 evidenced, 7 to do
ID - Identify8 of 21 evidenced, 13 to do
PR - Protect4 of 22 evidenced, 18 to do
GV - Govern5 of 28 evidenced, 23 to do
DE - Detect0 of 11 evidenced, 11 to do
Govern0 of 3 evidenced, 3 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.

4.1NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01argued against and upheld
Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood

Context analysis documents internal and external issues bearing on the organization.

4.2.1NIST-CSF-GV.OC-02argued against and upheld
Internal and external stakeholders are understood

Interested parties and their requirements are determined and documented.

4.2.2NIST-CSF-GV.OC-03argued against and upheld
Legal, regulatory, and contractual requirements are understood

Legal and regulatory requirements are identified, documented and kept current.

8.2.2NIST-CSF-GV.OC-04argued against and upheld
Critical objectives, capabilities, and services are understood

Business impact analysis identifies prioritized activities and the objectives they support.

8.2.2NIST-CSF-GV.OC-05argued against and upheld
Outcomes and dependencies of critical services are understood

Business impact analysis records dependencies and resources supporting critical activities.

8.2.2NIST-CSF-ID.AM-05argued against and upheld
Assets are prioritized based on classification, criticality, resources, and impact

Business impact analysis prioritizes activities by impact of disruption over time.

8.5NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01argued against and upheld
Improvements are identified from security test and exercise results

Exercise programme results identify improvements to plans and capability.

8.6NIST-CSF-ID.IM-01argued against and upheld
Improvements are identified from security test and exercise results

Evaluation of documentation and capability produces improvement actions.

Claims that did not hold

54 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.

6.1.1NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01
Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood

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.

4.2NIST-CSF-GV.OC-01
Organizational context for cybersecurity risk management is understood

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.

4.2.2NIST-CSF-GV.OC-02
Internal and external stakeholders are understood

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.

9.3.3NIST-CSF-GV.OV-01
Risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed

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.

10.1NIST-CSF-GV.OV-01
Risk management strategy outcomes are reviewed

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.

6.1.2NIST-CSF-GV.OV-02
Risk management strategy is reviewed for coverage

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.

9.3.2NIST-CSF-GV.OV-02
Risk management strategy is reviewed for coverage

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.

8.2.3NIST-CSF-GV.OV-02
Risk management strategy is reviewed for coverage

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