NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1ISO 22301:2019

NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1 covers 36.8% of ISO 22301:2019

21 of the 57 controls in ISO 22301:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-161 Rev 1. 36 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.

36.8%
of the target already covered
21
controls evidenced
36
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 22301:2019 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.

73 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.

Operation, ISO 22301:201910 of 19 evidenced, 9 to do
Support, ISO 22301:20194 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
Improvement, ISO 22301:20191 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
Leadership, ISO 22301:20192 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:20192 of 8 evidenced, 6 to do
Planning, ISO 22301:20191 of 7 evidenced, 6 to do
Context of the organization, ISO 22301:20191 of 8 evidenced, 7 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.

PM-410.1argued against and upheld
Nonconformity and corrective action

Organizational process carrying weaknesses through to closure.

CA-510.1argued against and upheld
Nonconformity and corrective action

Tracks nonconformities to closure with named owners and dates.

CP-14.4argued against and upheld
Business continuity management system

Contingency policy and procedures establish and maintain the management system.

CP-15.2argued against and upheld
Policy

Contingency policy covering loss of a supplier, provider or component source.

PM-295.3argued against and upheld
Roles, responsibilities and authorities

Names the leadership roles that own risk, distinct from system owners.

PM-25.3argued against and upheld
Roles, responsibilities and authorities

Places accountability with a named leader who has authority to act.

RA-76.1.2argued against and upheld
Addressing risks and opportunities

Risk response records the planned action, its owner and its review point.

SA-27.1argued against and upheld
Resources

Allocates the resources needed to meet requirements as part of acquisition.

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