ISO 27002:2022 covers 67.8% of C5 (Germany)
82 of the 121 controls in C5 (Germany) are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 39 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
C5 (Germany) has 121 controls. Holding ISO 27002:2022 already evidences 82 of them, so the work in front of you is 39 controls, not 121, which is 32% 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 82 controls of C5 (Germany) you do not have to implement again, which is $3.65 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 82 already evidenced are | 328 hours | 656 hours | 1,312 hours |
| and the 39 remaining are | 156 hours | 312 hours | 624 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 C5 (Germany) 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.
151 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.
Asset inventory maintained through lifecycle is exactly the inventory control.
Acceptable use and safe handling rules for assets are documented and issued.
Secure disposal or re-use of equipment governs hardware withdrawal from production.
Return of assets on termination is the same obligation.
Employment terms bind personnel to asset handling rules before access.
Classification of information under one scheme by owners matches directly.
Labelling of information according to the classification scheme matches directly.
ICT readiness requires business impact analysis deriving recovery objectives.
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