NIS2 DirectiveISO 27001:2022

NIS2 Directive covers 24.7% of ISO 27001:2022

23 of the 93 controls in ISO 27001:2022 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIS2 Directive. 70 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.

24.7%
of the target already covered
23
controls evidenced
70
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 27001:2022 your NIS2 Directive 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.

72 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.

Organizational controls13 of 37 evidenced, 24 to do
Technological controls9 of 34 evidenced, 25 to do
People controls1 of 8 evidenced, 7 to do
Physical controls0 of 14 evidenced, 14 to do

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.

Art.21.2.a5.1argued against and upheld
Policies for information security

Requires the information system security policy set, approved and maintained, which is the control.

Art.21.2.i5.15argued against and upheld
Access control

Access control policy limb sets the rules for how access is granted and governed.

Art.21.2.i5.18argued against and upheld
Access rights

Requires provisioning, review and change of rights including privileged access and internal movers.

Art.21.2.d5.19argued against and upheld
Information security in supplier relationships

Requires managing the security aspects of every direct supplier and service provider relationship.

Art.21.2.d5.20argued against and upheld
Addressing information security within supplier agreements

Contract terms are the named enforcement mechanism for supplier security obligations.

Art.21.2.b5.24argued against and upheld
Information security incident management planning and preparation

Incident handling requires defined severity levels, escalation and named responsibilities before an incident.

Art.21.2.b5.25argued against and upheld
Assessment and decision on information security events

Requires a triage and classification scheme able to recognise a significant incident.

Art.21.2.b5.26argued against and upheld
Response to information security incidents

Requires containment, eradication and recovery executed against the defined capability.

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