Does Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act cover ISO/IEC 23894:2023?

20% of ISO/IEC 23894:2023 you already have

Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act already covers about 20% of ISO/IEC 23894:2023, leaving 64 of 80 controls as genuinely new work.

Already covered 0 Likely covered 16 New work 64

No control in Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act maps directly to one in ISO/IEC 23894:2023. 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 Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act reaches these. This is the list to scope.

23894-4.1

AI Risk Management Principles

23894-5.2

Leadership and Commitment

23894-5.3

Integration into Organizational Processes

23894-5.4.1

Understanding Organization and Context

23894-5.4.2

AI Risk Management Policy

23894-5.4.3

Roles, Authorities, Responsibilities

23894-5.4.4

Allocation of Resources

23894-5.5

Communication and Consultation

23894-6.3

AI Risk Assessment Scope and Criteria

23894-6.4.3

AI Risk Analysis

23894-6.4.4

AI Risk Evaluation

23894-6.5

AI Risk Treatment

23894-6.6

Monitoring and Review

23894-6.7

Recording and Reporting

23894-A.2

AI Objectives and Risk Sources

23894-A.3

Lifecycle Risk Considerations

23894-A.4

AI System Impact Assessment

23894-A.5

Human Oversight Controls

23894-A.6

Transparency and Explainability

23894-A.7

Data Quality and Provenance

23894-A.8

Robustness and Resilience Testing

23894-A.9

Third-Party AI Components

ISO23894-4.1

Integrated AI Risk Management

ISO23894-4.2

Structured and Comprehensive Approach

ISO23894-4.3

Customized to AI Context

ISO23894-4.4

Inclusive Stakeholder Engagement

ISO23894-4.5

Dynamic and Responsive

ISO23894-4.6

Best Available Information

ISO23894-4.7

Human and Cultural Factors

ISO23894-4.8

Continual Improvement

ISO23894-5.3

AI Risk Management Design

ISO23894-5.4

AI Risk Management Implementation

ISO23894-5.6

Framework Improvement

ISO23894-6.1

Communication and Consultation

ISO23894-6.3.2

AI Risk Analysis

ISO23894-6.4

AI Risk Treatment

ISO23894-6.5

Monitoring and Review

ISO23894-6.6

Recording and Reporting

ISO23894-A.2

Model Transparency and Explainability

ISO23894-A.3

Algorithmic Bias and Fairness

ISO23894-A.4

AI System Robustness

ISO23894-A.7

Human Oversight of AI

ISO23894-A.8

AI Accountability and Governance

5.2

Leadership and commitment

5.3

Integration

5.4

Design

5.4.1

Understanding the organization and its context

5.4.2

Articulating risk management commitment

5.4.3

Assigning organizational roles, authorities, responsibilities and

5.4.4

Allocating resources

5.4.5

Establishing communication and consultation

5.7.1

Adapting

5.7.2

Continually improving

6.2

Communication and consultation

6.3.2

Defining the scope

6.3.3

External and internal context

6.3.4

Defining risk criteria

6.4.3

Risk analysis

6.4.4

Risk evaluation

6.5

Risk treatment

6.5.2

Selection of risk treatment options

6.5.3

Preparing and implementing risk treatment plans

6.6

Monitoring and review

6.7

Recording and reporting

Show the 16 you already have

23894-6.4.2

AI Risk Identification

ISO23894-1

Scope of AI Risk Management

ISO23894-3

AI-Specific Terminology

ISO23894-5.1

Leadership and Commitment

ISO23894-5.2

AI Risk Management Integration

ISO23894-5.5

Framework Evaluation

ISO23894-6.2

Scope, Context and Criteria

ISO23894-6.3

AI Risk Assessment

ISO23894-6.3.1

AI Risk Identification

ISO23894-6.3.3

AI Risk Evaluation

ISO23894-A.1

Data Quality and Representativeness

ISO23894-A.5

Privacy and Data Protection in AI

ISO23894-A.6

AI System Security

5.5

Implementation

6.4

Risk assessment

6.4.2

Risk identification

How this is calculated

Already covered means a mapping runs from a control in Iowa Consumer Data Protection Act 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