SOC 2AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

SOC 2 covers 39.7% of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar

25 of the 63 controls in AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar are already satisfied by evidence you collected for SOC 2. 38 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.

39.7%
of the target already covered
25
controls evidenced
38
genuine gaps
0
claims rejected in review

This number is directional. It says how much of AWS Well-Architected Security Pillar 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.

58 candidate mappings were examined and 2 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.

Infrastructure Protection5 of 9 evidenced, 4 to do
Data Protection6 of 11 evidenced, 5 to do
Incident Response4 of 8 evidenced, 4 to do
Detection2 of 4 evidenced, 2 to do
Identity & Access Management5 of 15 evidenced, 10 to do
Application Security2 of 8 evidenced, 6 to do
Security Foundations1 of 8 evidenced, 7 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-CC7.4SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP01argued against and upheld
Identify key personnel and external resources

Responding through defined procedures requires named responders and responsibilities.

SOC2-CC7.4SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP02argued against and upheld
Develop incident management plans

SOC 2 requires documented incident response procedures covering the full cycle.

SOC2-CC7.4SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP04argued against and upheld
Develop and test security incident response playbooks

Defined response procedures must exist and be exercised for anticipated incidents.

SOC2-CC7.5SEC 10: How do you anticipate, respond to, and recover from incidents? | SEC10-BP08argued against and upheld
Establish a framework for learning from incidents

SOC 2 requires root cause identification and improvement after incidents.

SOC2-CC8.1SEC 11: How do you incorporate and validate the security properties of applications? | SEC11-BP04argued against and upheld
Conduct code reviews

SOC 2 requires changes be reviewed and approved before implementation.

SOC2-CC8.1SEC 11: How do you incorporate and validate the security properties of applications? | SEC11-BP06argued against and upheld
Deploy software programmatically

Change implementation is restricted, approved and evidenced rather than manual.

SOC2-CC3.1SEC 1: How do you securely operate your workload? | SEC01-BP03argued against and upheld
Identify and validate control objectives

SOC 2 requires objectives specified with clarity and traced to control activities.

SOC2-CC6.1SEC 2: How do you manage identities for people and machines? | SEC02-BP01argued against and upheld
Use strong sign-in mechanisms

SOC 2 requires users be identified and authenticated with strong credential controls.

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