ISO/IEC 42001:2023 covers 47.2% of NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0)
34 of the 72 controls in NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) are already satisfied by evidence you collected for ISO/IEC 42001:2023. 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 NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) 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.
52 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.
A documented AI policy aligned to strategic direction is the integration into organisational policy.
The documented AI policy establishes the process and its outcomes transparently.
Review at planned intervals for continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness is this periodic review.
Roles and responsibilities for AI defined and allocated according to organisational needs.
A process enabling reporting of concerns about AI development, deployment or use is this practice.
Impact assessment documentation maintained and made available to interested parties.
Event logs recorded to enable monitoring, accountability and incident investigation.
Mechanisms for external interested parties to report concerns or impacts.
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