Who warns about it
Every framework below independently names this failure. They were written by different
bodies, in different jurisdictions, for different industries, and they agree.
What an auditor asks for
The artefacts named on the controls that warn about this failure. This is what closes
it, and what you will be asked to produce when somebody checks.
- Transfer map + per destination + records + per data flow + per category
- TIA + per transfer + records + per destination + periodic review
- Lawful mechanism + Adequacy/SCC/BCR + records + per transfer + per recipient
- Supplementary measures + encryption/pseudonymisation + records + per transfer
- Section 22 disclosure + transfer destinations + records + per touchpoint
- Lawful mechanism + Adequacy/SCC/consent + records + per transfer + per recipient
What closing it also buys you
The 4 controls that warn about this failure map onto controls in other
frameworks. Close them here and this much of each of those is closed too. It is the same work
counted once, which is usually the difference between a programme that finishes and one that
does not.
| Also progresses | Covered |
Controls reached |
|---|
| Federal Decree-Law No. 45 of 2021 on the Protection of Personal Data (UAE PDPL) United Arab Emirates | 33.3% | 4 of 12 |
| Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) Australia | 20.0% | 4 of 20 |
| Barbados Data Protection Act 2019 Barbados | 17.4% | 4 of 23 |
| GDPR European Union | 14.8% | 4 of 27 |
| Bahrain PDPL Bahrain | 13.8% | 4 of 29 |
| Vietnam Law on Cybersecurity (No. 24/2018/QH14) Vietnam | 75.0% | 3 of 4 |
| Tennessee Information Protection Act (TIPA) United States — Tennessee | 42.9% | 3 of 7 |
| Regulation on the European Health Data Space (EHDS) European Union | 50.0% | 3 of 6 |
| Privacy Act 1988 (Australia) Australia | 37.5% | 3 of 8 |
| ISO/IEC 29100:2024 International | 7.5% | 3 of 40 |
| Azerbaijan Law on Personal Data (2010) Azerbaijan | 20.0% | 3 of 15 |
| Armenia Law on Protection of Personal Data (2015) Armenia | 16.7% | 3 of 18 |
Read as: closing this failure reaches that share of the named
framework's control library through cross-framework mappings held in our corpus. It is not a
claim of compliance with that framework, it is a measure of how much of it you have already
touched.
Where this comes from
Harvested from the control library itself. Every control in our corpus carries the evidence an
auditor expects and the ways implementations commonly fail, recorded when that control was
verified against its source document. This page is those two fields, for one failure, across
every framework that names it.
The overlap is computed by traversing
332,959 cross-framework control mappings out from the specific controls that
warn about this failure, not from the frameworks they sit in. Those mappings were built control
by control against source documents.
Nothing here is inferred, predicted or scored. The number at the top
is a count of frameworks.
All failure modes ·
The index