SOC 2APRA CPS 234

SOC 2 covers 75% of APRA CPS 234

18 of the 24 controls in APRA CPS 234 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for SOC 2. 6 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.

75%
of the target already covered
18
controls evidenced
6
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of APRA CPS 234 your SOC 2 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.

27 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.

Third Party Arrangements3 of 3 evidenced
Roles and Responsibilities2 of 2 evidenced
Policy Framework2 of 2 evidenced
Implementation of Controls2 of 2 evidenced
Information Asset Identification and Classification1 of 1 evidenced
Testing Control Effectiveness3 of 4 evidenced, 1 to do
Incident Management2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
Internal Audit2 of 3 evidenced, 1 to do
Information Security Capability1 of 2 evidenced, 1 to do
APRA Notification0 of 2 evidenced, 2 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.

SOC2-CC1.2CPS 234 para 13argued against and upheld
Board Responsibility for Information Security

Board oversight of the development and performance of internal control is the same accountability.

SOC2-CC1.3CPS 234 para 14argued against and upheld
Definition of Information Security Roles and Responsibilities

Established structures, reporting lines and authorities are the defined security roles.

SOC2-CC9.2CPS 234 para 16argued against and upheld
Assessment of Related Party and Third Party Capability

Assessment of vendor and business partner controls is the third party capability assessment.

SOC2-CC3.4CPS 234 para 17argued against and upheld
Active Maintenance of Capability Against Change

Identifying and assessing changes affecting internal control keeps capability current.

SOC2-CC5.3CPS 234 para 18argued against and upheld
Information Security Policy Framework

Deploying control activities through policies is the policy framework requirement.

SOC2-CC2.2CPS 234 para 19argued against and upheld
Policy Direction to All Responsible Parties

Internal communication of control responsibilities gives direction to every responsible party.

SOC2-C1.1CPS 234 para 20argued against and upheld
Information Asset Classification

Identifying and maintaining confidential information is the asset classification evidence.

SOC2-CC6.1CPS 234 para 21argued against and upheld
Implementation of Information Security Controls

Implemented logical access security over protected information assets is directly this evidence.

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