UK Cyber Essentials covers 22.7% of CMMC 2.0
25 of the 110 controls in CMMC 2.0 are already satisfied by evidence you collected for UK Cyber Essentials. 85 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 CMMC 2.0 your UK Cyber Essentials 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.
56 candidate mappings were examined and 1 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.
Both require a unique authenticated account before system access is allowed.
Both limit access to users authorised through a documented approval process.
Both require multi-factor authentication on administrative accounts reached remotely.
Both require remote privileged access protected by MFA or a restricted allowlist.
Both separate administrative transactions from routine user activity by account type.
Both control which functions an account is permitted to execute through privilege approval.
Both require periodic review and downgrade of privileges no longer needed.
Both require privileges granted only where controlled and approved as necessary.
Claims that did not hold
1 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.
re-judged once CMMC 2.0 carried real requirement text rather than a pointer: leaver-triggered account removal is not inactivity-triggered disablement
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