NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0ISO 22301:2019

NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 covers 49.1% of ISO 22301:2019

28 of the 57 controls in ISO 22301:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. 29 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.

49.1%
of the target already covered
28
controls evidenced
29
genuine gaps
95
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 22301:2019 your NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 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.

143 candidate mappings were examined and 95 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.

Leadership, ISO 22301:20194 of 5 evidenced, 1 to do
Operation, ISO 22301:201911 of 19 evidenced, 8 to do
Improvement, ISO 22301:20191 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
Planning, ISO 22301:20193 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
Context of the organization, ISO 22301:20193 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Support, ISO 22301:20193 of 8 evidenced, 5 to do
Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:20193 of 8 evidenced, 5 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.

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-0310.2argued against and upheld
Continual improvement

Improvements identified from running operational processes is continual improvement, not nonconformity handling.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-014.1argued against and upheld
Understanding the organization and its context

Understanding organizational context is the same determination of internal and external issues.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-024.2.1argued against and upheld
General

Stakeholder understanding is the general interested party requirement.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-034.2.2argued against and upheld
Legal and regulatory requirements

Legal, regulatory and contractual requirements understood is the same determination.

NIST-CSF-GV.RR-015.1argued against and upheld
Leadership and commitment

Leadership accountable for risk management is the same leadership and commitment evidence.

NIST-CSF-GV.PO-015.2.1argued against and upheld
Establishing the business continuity policy

Establishing a risk management policy based on context is the same policy establishment.

NIST-CSF-GV.PO-025.2.2argued against and upheld
Communicating the business continuity policy

Policy communicated and enforced is the same communication requirement.

NIST-CSF-GV.RR-025.3argued against and upheld
Roles, responsibilities and authorities

Established roles and responsibilities are the same assignment of authorities.

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.

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-0210.1
Nonconformity and corrective action

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-0110.1
Nonconformity and corrective action

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-ID.IM-0310.1
Nonconformity and corrective action

target corrected: ISO 22301 clauses 10.1 and 10.2 were swapped in the graph

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-024.1
Understanding the organization and its context

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-034.1
Understanding the organization and its context

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-044.1
Understanding the organization and its context

retired metered-API path. 56 percent of its output was refuted wherever it was re-judged, so its residue is not trusted evidence. Superseded by judgement on the Claude Max plan 2026-08-19.

Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-034.2
Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties

Held back 2026-08-19. Generated by the retired metered path, refuted at 56 percent wherever re-judged. Pair pulled from sale pending a rebuild on the Max plan.

Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.

NIST-CSF-GV.OC-024.2
Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties

parent and subclause double counted, resolved to the most specific clause

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