19% of ISO 22320:2018 you already have
APRA CPS 234 already covers about 19% of ISO 22320:2018, leaving
29 of 36 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 7
Likely covered 0
New work 29
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in APRA CPS 234 reaches these. This is the list to scope.
ISO-22320-4.4Information sharing
ISO-22320-4.6Flexibility and adaptability
ISO-22320-4.7Human and cultural factors
ISO-22320-4.8Continual improvement
ISO-22320-5.5Resource management
ISO-22320-6.1General cooperation requirements
ISO-22320-6.2Collaboration and coordination
ISO-22320-6.3Communication protocols
ISO-22320-6.4Joint direction
ISO-22320-AAnnex A: Collaboration and communication guidance
ISO22320-10.1Post Incident Review and Lessons Learned
ISO22320-10.2Continual Improvement of Incident Management
ISO22320-4.1Incident Management Policy
ISO22320-4.2Roles, Responsibilities, and Authorities
ISO22320-5.1Command Function
ISO22320-5.2Control Function
ISO22320-5.3Coordination Function
ISO22320-6.1Incident Command System Structure
ISO22320-6.2Common Terminology and Plain Language
ISO22320-6.3Incident Action Planning
ISO22320-7.1Operational Information Management
ISO22320-7.2Communication Systems and Interoperability
ISO22320-7.3Situational Awareness and Common Operating Picture
ISO22320-8.1Cooperation with External Agencies
ISO22320-8.2Multi Agency Coordination
ISO22320-9.1Human Factors and Welfare
ISO22320-9.2Training, Exercising, and Competence
Show the 7 you already have
ISO-22320-4.3Risk-based approach
ISO-22320-5.1General process requirements
ISO-22320-5.2Incident management process
ISO-22320-5.3Incident management structure (command)
ISO-22320-5.4Roles and responsibilities
ISO-22320-BAnnex B: Incident management plan structure
ISO-22320-CAnnex C: Incident management task examples
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in APRA CPS 234 to that control. Likely
covered means no direct mapping exists but both frameworks map to the same control in a third
standard. New work means neither. We keep those separate rather than adding them into one
friendlier number, because blending them would present a two-hop inference as a verified
fact.
Coverage is not symmetric.
Run it the other way and you will get a
different number; both are correct.
From 332,959 cross-framework control
mappings across 723 frameworks, 531 of them verified against
their source documents. It does not tell you that you are compliant: a mapped control means
the two standards ask for the same thing, not that you have done it.
Try another pair ยท
Today's edition