SOC 2 covers 35.1% of ISO 22301:2019
20 of the 57 controls in ISO 22301:2019 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for SOC 2. 37 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.
What this leaves you to do
ISO 22301:2019 has 57 controls. Holding SOC 2 already evidences 20 of them, so the work in front of you is 37 controls, not 57, which is 65% of the standard rather than all of it.
That is the whole claim. Every number in that sentence comes from the two counts above it and can be re-derived from the free tools without taking our word for any of it.
In money, using only our numbers. The full report is $299 and names 20 controls of ISO 22301:2019 you do not have to implement again, which is $14.95 per control identified. That arithmetic uses our price and our count and assumes nothing about you.
In your hours, using your assumption. We do not know what a control costs you to implement, so pick the column that looks like your organisation. These are your figures, not our claim.
| If a control takes you | 4 hours | 8 hours | 16 hours |
|---|---|---|---|
| the 20 already evidenced are | 80 hours | 160 hours | 320 hours |
| and the 37 remaining are | 148 hours | 296 hours | 592 hours |
Multiply by your own rate. We publish no rate because we have not measured yours, and a number built on an invented rate is the kind of claim this platform exists to argue against.
This number is directional. It says how much of ISO 22301:2019 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.
138 candidate mappings were examined and 104 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.
Deficiencies evaluated and communicated to those responsible for corrective action is the corrective action loop of 10.1.
Root cause identification and changes to prevent recurrence is exactly the corrective action 10.1 requires.
Management must establish structures, reporting lines, authorities and responsibilities.
Risks to objectives must be identified across the entity and analysed.
Objectives must be specified with clarity sufficient to identify and assess risk.
Objective setting must be specific enough to measure achievement.
The organization must attract, develop and retain individuals competent for their role.
Risk mitigation activities including business disruption must be identified and developed.
Claims that did not hold
101 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.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
target corrected: ISO 22301 clauses 10.1 and 10.2 were swapped in the graph
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
target corrected: ISO 22301 clauses 10.1 and 10.2 were swapped in the graph
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at low confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at medium confidence before it was rejected.
did not survive the adversarial verification pass run by qwen3-235b-a22b-2507 via openrouter. No per-edge rationale was recorded at the time, so the process is stated rather than a reason invented.
Claimed at high confidence before it was rejected.
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