ISO/IEC 42001:2023 covers 39.5% of EU AI Act
17 of the 43 controls in EU AI Act are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO/IEC 42001:2023. 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.
What this leaves you to do
EU AI Act has 43 controls. Holding ISO/IEC 42001:2023 already evidences 17 of them, so the work in front of you is 26 controls, not 43, which is 60% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. We do not know your hourly rate, how long a control takes you, or how many people you have, so there is no figure here in dollars or weeks. 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.
This number is directional. It says how much of EU AI Act your ISO/IEC 42001:2023 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.
88 candidate mappings were examined and 0 were removed. Signed off 2026-08-20, 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.
Quality requirements for data are defined, documented and verified as met.
Documented processes determine data requirements and ensure quality for development.
Technical documentation is produced and provided to users, partners and regulators.
Design and development activity documentation is maintained across the build.
Event logs generated and recorded during operation for monitoring and investigation.
The organisation determines and provides the information users of the system need.
Documented processes for responsible design and development match the design control duty.
Defined and allocated AI roles satisfy the required accountability framework.
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