23% of FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR) you already have
Belgium CyberFundamentals already covers about 23% of FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR), leaving
10 of 13 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 3
New work 10
No control in Belgium CyberFundamentals
maps directly to one in FDA Quality Management System Regulation (QMSR). Everything counted as covered is covered because both
map to the same third standard, which is what a crosswalk is, but it is an inference rather
than a lookup.
What is genuinely new work
Nothing in Belgium CyberFundamentals reaches these. This is the list to scope.
QMSR-820.10Requirements for a Quality Management System - ISO 13485:2016 Sections 4-8 incorporation (§820.10)
QMSR-820.15Clarification of concepts (§820.15)
QMSR-820.1_3_7Scope, definitions and incorporation by reference (§§820.1, 820.3, 820.7)
QMSR-820.35Control of records - record retention, audit trail, UDI, medical-device reporting (§820.35)
QMSR-Coord-ISO13485-MDR-IVDR-Part11Coordination with ISO 13485:2016, EU MDR/IVDR, FDA Part 11, Cybersecurity Guidance
QMSR-ISO13485-Sec6Resource management (ISO 13485:2016 Section 6 - incorporated via §820.10)
QMSR-ISO13485-Sec7_DesignControlsProduct realization - Design and Development controls (ISO 13485:2016 Section 7.3)
QMSR-ISO13485-Sec8Measurement, analysis and improvement (ISO 13485:2016 Section 8)
QMSR-StatusFDA QMSR - corpus status, enforcement landscape, future evolution
QMSR-TransitionTransition from prior QSR + 2 February 2026 application + FDA inspection approach
Show the 3 you already have
QMSR-820.45Device labelling and packaging controls (§820.45)
QMSR-ISO13485-Sec5Management responsibility (ISO 13485:2016 Section 5 - incorporated via §820.10)
QMSR-ISO13485-Sec7_PurchasingPurchasing controls + supplier management (ISO 13485:2016 Section 7.4)
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Belgium CyberFundamentals 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 ·
Today's edition