14% of ISO/IEC 29100:2024 you already have
EASA Part-IS already covers about 14% of ISO/IEC 29100:2024, leaving
32 of 37 controls as genuinely new work.
Already covered 0
Likely covered 5
New work 32
No control in EASA Part-IS
maps directly to one in ISO/IEC 29100:2024. 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 EASA Part-IS reaches these. This is the list to scope.
29100-4.2Interactions between actors
29100-4.3Privacy safeguarding requirements
29100-5.2Regulatory factors
29100-5.3Privacy risk factors
29100-6.1Consent and choice
29100-6.11Privacy compliance
29100-6.2Purpose legitimacy and specification
29100-6.3Collection limitation
29100-6.4Data minimization
29100-6.6Accuracy and quality
29100-6.7Openness, transparency and notice
29100-6.8Individual participation and access
ISO29100-5.1PII Actor Identification
ISO29100-5.10.1Consent and Choice Principle
ISO29100-5.10.11Privacy Compliance
ISO29100-5.10.2Purpose Legitimacy and Specification
ISO29100-5.10.3Collection Limitation
ISO29100-5.10.4Data Minimisation
ISO29100-5.10.5Use, Retention, and Disclosure Limitation
ISO29100-5.10.6Accuracy and Quality
ISO29100-5.10.7Openness, Transparency, and Notice
ISO29100-5.10.8Individual Participation and Access
ISO29100-5.10.9Accountability
ISO29100-5.2PII and Sensitive PII Categorisation
ISO29100-6.1Privacy Safeguarding Requirements Identification
ISO29100-6.2Privacy Risk Factors
ISO29100-6.3Controls Selection and Implementation
ISO29100-6.4Privacy by Design and Default
ISO29100-6.5Cross Border PII Transfer Controls
ISO29100-6.6Breach Management
ISO29100-6.7Third Party Privacy Governance
Show the 5 you already have
29100-4.1Actors and roles
29100-6.10Information security
29100-6.5Use, retention and disclosure limitation
ISO29100-5.10.10Information Security
How this is calculated
Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in EASA Part-IS 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