Cross-framework control mapping.
Answer once, comply everywhere.
Most requirements across most regimes are the same handful of controls asked in different words. The mapping engine holds that relationship explicitly, so one control result reaches every framework that asks for it, and you can see what a new regime costs before enabling it.
What it does
- 45 shared controls and 700+ requirement mappings across 25+ regimes
- Overlap and gap diagnostics per framework
- Delta view before you enable a new regime
- Custom framework authoring for contractual regimes
Why the second framework is cheap
Run frameworks as separate projects and each new regime costs roughly what the last one did: the same evidence gets gathered again under a different heading, by a different owner, into a different folder.
Hold the mapping explicitly and the economics invert. Logical access control answers SOC 2 CC6.1, ISO 27001 A.8.2, GDPR Article 32 and part of DPDP section 8(5) from one implementation and one result. The second framework then costs only its genuinely unique requirements, which is typically a small fraction of its total.
Know the cost before you commit
“Can we sell into the EU next quarter?” is a question about a number nobody usually has. The delta view answers it by comparing a regime’s requirements against the controls you already operate and returning what is actually new, not a percentage, but the specific requirements with nothing behind them yet.
That converts a regime from an open-ended programme into a scoped piece of work with a visible bottom, which is usually the difference between a decision and a deferral.
Partial is a real answer
Mappings that record only satisfied are flattering and wrong. A control frequently covers part of a requirement (enough to matter, not enough to close it) and a mapping that rounds that up to a pass is how a programme arrives at audit believing it is finished.
So partial coverage is stored as partial, and the residue is visible as work. Customer contracts and sector rules that are not public frameworks can be authored as custom ones and mapped the same way, so contractual obligations stop living in a separate spreadsheet.
Where this sits
This is one engine of eleven on a single control graph, which is why a result produced here reaches every framework that asks for it instead of being gathered again under another heading. The platform overview shows the other ten, and coverage lists the regimes they answer.
Related reading: framework coverage and ISO 27001 compliance software.
The things people ask us
How many regimes are mapped?
25+ across India, Europe and the UK, the Americas, Asia-Pacific and the Middle East, over 45 shared controls and 700+ requirement mappings. The coverage page lists them by jurisdiction.
What does the delta view tell me?
Exactly which requirements of a regime you have nothing for yet, measured against the controls you already operate. Not a readiness percentage: the specific list, so a new market is a scoped piece of work rather than an open question.
Can a control partly satisfy a requirement?
Yes, and it is recorded as partial rather than rounded up. A mapping that only records full satisfaction is how programmes arrive at an audit believing they are finished.
Can we add a framework you do not ship?
Yes. Custom frameworks can be authored and mapped against the same control set, which is how customer contracts and sector-specific rules stop living in a separate spreadsheet nobody reconciles.
If one control fails, what happens?
Every framework that relies on it moves at once, in the same moment, because they read the same result. That is the cost of shared controls and also the entire benefit: you find out immediately rather than per-framework at audit time.
Your next audit could be a link.
Thirty minutes. We connect one cloud account live and show you real evidence landing in the ledger before the call ends.