NIST SP 800-218 covers 5.1% of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
10 of the 197 controls in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for NIST SP 800-218. 187 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 Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 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.
37 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.
Roles assigned across product, engineering, security and operations is how the policy reaches those staff.
Documented security requirements kept current and made accessible to development teams is this policy set.
Criteria for assessing software security before release define what an application must satisfy.
Identified and documented security requirements for developed software are the baseline requirements.
Secure coding practices applied consistently apply the requirements at the build stage.
Designing software to meet security requirements applies them at the design stage.
Toolchain enforcement makes the security requirements the default across the delivery path.
Independent design review confirms the lifecycle actually applied the security requirements.
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