NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) covers 78.9% of ISO/IEC 42001:2023
30 of the 38 controls in ISO/IEC 42001:2023 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0). 8 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/IEC 42001:2023 your NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF 1.0) 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.
39 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.
Contract terms addressing data rights and liability for AI components allocate responsibility across parties.
Ongoing monitoring of third-party dependencies with documented risk controls is the supplier process.
Identification of user types and their expectations of the system is the customer needs input.
An approved AI policy set naming each trustworthiness characteristic with an owner is this policy.
A planned review interval with completed review records and findings is the policy review mechanism.
A responsibility assignment covering map, measure and manage duties with escalation paths.
The internal protected route for raising an AI concern, with records of concerns and resolutions.
Defined proficiency requirements with assessment records document the human resources and their competencies.
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