ISO 27002:2022 covers 33.3% of ISO 22301:2019
19 of the 57 controls in ISO 22301:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO 27002:2022. 38 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 ISO 22301:2019 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.
137 candidate mappings were examined and 98 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.
Non-compliance found by the compliance check drives cause analysis, corrective action and a review of its effectiveness.
Legal, statutory, regulatory and contractual requirements must be identified and kept current.
Roles, responsibilities and authorities must be defined, allocated and communicated.
Personnel must be competent through education and training appropriate to their role.
Personnel must be made aware of policies and their own responsibilities.
Procedures must be documented, kept current and made available to those who need them.
Records must be protected against loss, unauthorized access and falsification, and retained.
ICT continuity must be planned, implemented, maintained and tested against objectives.
Claims that did not hold
95 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.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
target corrected: ISO 22301 clauses 10.1 and 10.2 were swapped in the graph
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
Superseded by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Claimed at high 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