PCI DSS 4.0 covers 54.2% of APRA CPS 234
13 of the 24 controls in APRA CPS 234 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for PCI DSS 4.0. 11 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 PCI DSS 4.0 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.
49 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.
Formal assignment of security responsibility to a CISO or equivalent names the accountable executive.
Security roles and responsibilities defined and formally acknowledged is the same requirement.
Monitoring provider compliance status at least annually sustains that assessment.
Due diligence before engaging a third party is the capability assessment required.
Review at least annually and update on change keeps the framework proportionate.
An overall information security policy established, published and maintained is the policy framework.
Dissemination of the policy to all relevant personnel is the direction to responsible parties.
Recording which requirements each provider manages is the design evaluation basis.
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