NIST SP 800-218 covers 15.7% of C5 (Germany)
19 of the 121 controls in C5 (Germany) are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-218. 102 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 C5 (Germany) your NIST SP 800-218 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.
41 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.
Customer obligations, regulatory expectations and internal policy are identified and documented.
Secure coding practice is the recognised engineering standard the policy must carry.
Documented security requirements grounded in policy, regulation and threat landscape, kept accessible to developers.
Software security requirements are communicated to third parties providing components.
Change rules require authorised contributors, review of every change and logging.
Release criteria tied to risk make the testing and approval thresholds explicit.
Recurring role appropriate secure development training with tracked completion and refresh.
Executable testing scope is tied to risk and to feature changes.
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