SOC 2 covers 37.6% of Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1
74 of the 197 controls in Cloud Security Alliance Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM) v4.0.1 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for SOC 2. 123 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 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.
148 candidate mappings were examined and 17 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. This pair was additionally re-checked after CSA CCM v4.0.1 was rebuilt from the CAIQ v4.0.1 source on 2026-08-19: its mappings were originally judged when CCM carried no requirement text, a sample of 70 across the 21 CCM pairs found about 80 percent holding cleanly, and the two identified errors were corrected before release.
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.
Ongoing and separate evaluations must be selected, developed and performed.
Separate evaluations require assessment independent of the function assessed.
Evaluation scope and frequency must vary with the assessed risk.
Deficiencies must be communicated to those responsible for corrective action.
Deficiencies must be evaluated and corrective action taken and tracked.
Requires business continuity policy and procedures as a disruption mitigation.
Requires assessment of the impact and risk of business disruption.
Requires strategies that reduce the impact of and allow recovery from disruption.
Claims that did not hold
4 proposed mappings for this pair were rejected. They are kept in the graph rather than deleted, so what was thrown out is as inspectable as what survived. A crosswalk that never rejects anything is not being judged.
Not carried by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Not carried by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Not carried by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
Not carried by the Claude Code judgement pass for this pair on 2026-08-19.
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