ISO 27001:2022 covers 57.4% of SOC 2
35 of the 61 controls in SOC 2 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27001:2022. 26 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 SOC 2 your ISO 27001:2022 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.
189 candidate mappings were examined and 102 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.
Capacity management is how availability commitments are kept.
Information backup is the data backup limb of this criterion.
Supporting utilities cover the power and cooling this criterion names.
Protecting against physical and environmental threats is the environmental limb.
ICT readiness for continuity requires recovery plans be exercised.
Data masking protects confidential information during processing and display.
Confidentiality agreements bind those who handle confidential information.
Labelling makes classification actionable during handling.
Claims that did not hold
102 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.
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 Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.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.
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.
Cover backup, redundancy, continuity, and physical protections
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
5.30 and 5.29 cover testing and continuity during disruption
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
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.
Classification, labeling, and transfer cover identification and protection
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Classification, labeling, and transfer cover identification and protection
Claimed at medium 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