NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 covers 58.3% of APRA CPS 234
14 of the 24 controls in APRA CPS 234 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1. 10 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 APRA CPS 234 your NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 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.
58 candidate mappings were examined and 0 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.
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.
Names the leadership roles owning risk and distinguishes them from system owners.
Assesses suppliers at a depth matched to what they supply and the access held.
Governs external service providers including the security roles each party holds.
Sets behavioural expectations for supplier, integrator and provider personnel using organizational systems.
Policy explicitly covers suppliers, integrators and providers and is flowed into agreements.
Criticality analysis identifies which assets and suppliers actually matter.
Categorization carries through to the criticality of components and suppliers relied on.
Requires design evidence sufficient for the organization to judge control design.
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