NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 covers 34% of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5

102 of the 300 controls in NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3. 198 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.

34%
of the target already covered
102
controls evidenced
198
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

What this leaves you to do

NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 has 300 controls. Holding NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 already evidences 102 of them, so the work in front of you is 198 controls, not 300, which is 66% of the standard rather than all of it.

That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.

In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 102 controls of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 you do not have to implement again, which is $2.93 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.

In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.

If a control takes you4 hours8 hours16 hours
the 102 already evidenced are408 hours816 hours1,632 hours
and the 198 remaining are792 hours1,584 hours3,168 hours

Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.

This number is directional. It says how much of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 your NIST SP 800-171 Rev 3 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.

141 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. This pair was signed off, then RETRACTED by its own builder on discovering that half of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 carried label-only descriptions, and restored 2026-08-19 after that framework was rebuilt from the OSCAL catalogue. The mappings are unchanged and were never re-judged, because the judgement was sound; only the target text was thin.

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.

IR - Incident Response7 of 9 evidenced, 2 to do
MP - Media Protection6 of 8 evidenced, 2 to do
AU - Audit and Accountability10 of 15 evidenced, 5 to do
AC - Access Control15 of 23 evidenced, 8 to do
CM - Configuration Management9 of 14 evidenced, 5 to do
IA - Identification and Authentication8 of 13 evidenced, 5 to do
CA - Assessment, Authorization, and Monitoring4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
PS - Personnel Security4 of 9 evidenced, 5 to do
MA - Maintenance3 of 7 evidenced, 4 to do
AT - Awareness and Training2 of 5 evidenced, 3 to do
SR - Supply Chain Risk Management4 of 12 evidenced, 8 to do
RA - Risk Assessment3 of 9 evidenced, 6 to do
PE - Physical and Environmental Protection6 of 22 evidenced, 16 to do
PL - Planning2 of 8 evidenced, 6 to do
SC - System and Communications Protection11 of 47 evidenced, 36 to do
SI - System and Information Integrity5 of 22 evidenced, 17 to do
SA - System and Services Acquisition3 of 17 evidenced, 14 to do
CP - Contingency Planning0 of 12 evidenced, 12 to do
PM - Program Management0 of 32 evidenced, 32 to do
PT - PII Processing and Transparency0 of 8 evidenced, 8 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.

03.15.01NIST800-AC-1argued against and upheld
Access control policy and procedures

Policy and procedures required for each security requirement family including access control.

03.01.10NIST800-AC-11argued against and upheld
Device lock

Device lock on inactivity with re authentication to unlock is the same control.

03.01.11NIST800-AC-12argued against and upheld
Session control

Automatic session termination on defined conditions is the same control.

03.01.12NIST800-AC-17argued against and upheld
Remote access

Remote access usage restrictions, authorization and managed access control points are the same.

03.01.16NIST800-AC-18argued against and upheld
Wireless access

Wireless usage restrictions, authorization, authentication and encryption are the same.

03.01.18NIST800-AC-19argued against and upheld
Access control for mobile devices

Mobile device configuration and connection requirements with CUI encryption are the same.

03.01.01NIST800-AC-2argued against and upheld
Account management

Account management defining, establishing, modifying and disabling accounts is the same control.

03.01.20NIST800-AC-20argued against and upheld
Use of external systems

Terms and conditions for external system use with storage device restrictions are the same.

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