ISO 27002:2022 covers 73% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar
46 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 17 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
AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar has 63 controls. Holding ISO 27002:2022 already evidences 46 of them, so the work in front of you is 17 controls, not 63, which is 27% 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 46 controls of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar you do not have to implement again, which is $6.50 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 46 already evidenced are | 184 hours | 368 hours | 736 hours |
| and the 17 remaining are | 68 hours | 136 hours | 272 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 AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar your ISO 27002:2022 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.
78 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.
Incident management planning names responders and their contacts in advance.
Documented incident management plans covering detection through lessons learned.
Collection of evidence requires forensic procedures prepared in advance.
Incident response follows documented procedures for anticipated scenarios.
Incident preparation includes having tooling and capability ready.
Learning from incidents captures causes and feeds improvements back.
Secure coding requires developers be trained in secure development practice.
Security testing embedded through development and release.
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