Crosswalk pair
FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and ISO/IEC 42001, control by control
2 canonical controls in Keel’s library satisfy clauses of both FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and ISO/IEC 42001. Implement each once, attach the evidence once, and it counts toward each standard. The overlap is the work you don’t repeat.
The overlap
What the two libraries have in common
Every figure here counts canonical controls in Keel’s library, not clauses of either standard. Each standard’s own authored count is on its framework page.
2
Controls that satisfy both
Canonical controls that crosswalk to at least one clause of each.
66
In Keel’s library for FedRAMP Rev5 Class D
3% of them also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
38
In Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001
5% of them also map to FedRAMP Rev5 Class D.
7
Evidence artifacts expected
Across the shared controls, from Keel’s evidence guidance. Gathered once.
-
2 controls of 66 in Keel’s library for FedRAMP Rev5 Class D also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
-
2 controls of 38 in Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001 also map to FedRAMP Rev5 Class D.
The mapping
Controls that satisfy both
Each row is one control in Keel’s library and the clauses it answers on each side. Do the work once; both columns are then evidenced by the same artifacts.
| Canonical control | FedRAMP Rev5 Class D clauses | ISO/IEC 42001 clauses |
|---|---|---|
| Governance & Risk | ||
| Internal audit program A risk-based internal audit program evaluates conformity and effectiveness at planned intervals, and again when an environmental or operational change could have undermined what was last evaluated; each evaluation covers both technical testing and non-technical review of whether the documented policies and procedures are actually being met. The program itself is written down - how often audits run, what methods they use, who is responsible for them, what each one covers and how it reports - and nobody audits their own work, so a finding is an independent judgment rather than a self-assessment. The results of each audit go to the management responsible for the area audited, and the program and its results are retained as evidence that it ran. It rests on a documented assessment, authorization and monitoring policy with supporting procedures, issued to the roles it binds, owned by a named official, and reviewed and updated on a defined cadence. Independence is a property of the assessor and not only of the reporting line: assessments are carried out by assessors or assessment teams with no responsibility for what they are assessing and no stake in the result - internal to the organization but outside the area, or brought in from outside it - and the organization states what level of independence it requires before the assessment is commissioned rather than judging it afterwards. That independence extends to the ongoing case as well as the scheduled one: where controls are monitored continuously between audits, independent assessors monitor them too, so the periodic audit is not the only unbiased look the organization ever takes. What an evaluation produces is treated as an input to improvement and not only as a conformity verdict: the findings, the observations and the opportunities each audit identifies are recorded as improvements with owners and dates and carried into the organization’s improvement process, so an audit changes something rather than closing. Where a regime names the parties an assessment result must reach, such as a regulator, a certifying body or the customers the assessed service serves, the results go to those parties as well as to the management responsible for the area audited. | CA-2(2), CA-2(3), CA-1, CA-2, CA-2(1), CA-7(1) | 9.2 |
| Resources for the management system The resources the management system needs in order to be established, run, kept running and improved are determined and provided, not assumed: the people and the time they are actually given rather than the time the plan says they have, the tools and technology, the information, and the budget. The determination distinguishes what the organization can meet from its own capability from what it has to obtain from outside, and it is written down so a shortfall is visible as a shortfall. It is revisited when the system’s scope, its workload or the organization changes, so a system that has grown is not still resourced for the size it was when it started. Security and privacy are budgeted as a discrete line rather than absorbed into a general technology allocation. The high-level security and privacy requirements for a system or a service are determined while the business process it serves is being planned, rather than after the design is fixed; what it will cost to protect it is then determined, documented and allocated as part of the organization’s capital planning and investment process; and that amount appears as a discrete line item in the programming and budgeting record - so an underfunded control is a visible decision rather than an unexplained gap. Adequacy is judged against the risk strategy rather than against last year’s allocation: what is provided is set commensurate with the risks the organization has said it will manage, the roles it has assigned and the policies it has issued - and where it is not, the shortfall is recorded against the part of the strategy it fails to fund. People are determined as their own class of resource rather than counted inside a budget line: the persons necessary for the system to be implemented effectively, and for its processes to be operated and controlled, are identified from the work that has to be done and are then actually provided - so a process with nobody assigned to run it is visible before it fails rather than after. Where the management system depends on data and on computing capacity - not only on people, tools and money - those are determined and provided as resource classes in their own right, so a system planned without the data it needs, or without the compute to run what it plans, is a visible shortfall rather than a later discovery. | SA-2 | 7.1 |
Beyond the pair
Where else this work counts
A framework is lit when a shared control above also maps to it. Unlit means none of them do, which is an absence rather than a judgment about that standard.
Also reached by these 2 controls
- AI Governance Essentials not reached
- Amazon Appstore Child-Directed Apps not reached
- Apple App Store Kids Category not reached
- CIS Critical Security Controls not reached
- COPPA also reached
- ESG Essentials not reached
- EU AI Act not reached
- FedRAMP 20x also reached
- FedRAMP Consolidated Rules not reached
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class B also reached
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class C also reached
- GDPR not reached
- Google Play Families not reached
- HIPAA also reached
- ISO 9001 also reached
- ISO/IEC 27001 also reached
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework not reached
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework also reached
- NIST SP 800-171 also reached
- NIST SP 800-53 also reached
- PCI DSS not reached
- PIPEDA not reached
- SOC 2 also reached
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 also reached
- US Employment Law - Federal Baseline not reached
Nearby pairs
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and FedRAMP Rev5 Class C 64 shared controls
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and NIST SP 800-53 60 shared controls
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and ISO/IEC 27001 55 shared controls
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and FedRAMP Rev5 Class B 50 shared controls
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and NIST SP 800-171 40 shared controls
- FedRAMP Rev5 Class D and CIS Critical Security Controls 35 shared controls
The thesis
Why this is one project, not two
On a crosswalk-native model, ISO/IEC 42001 mostly lights up controls you already built for FedRAMP Rev5 Class D. You’re not re-uploading the same screenshot for a second audit. You apply the framework and see the genuine delta worth working. That’s the whole idea behind collect once, comply everywhere.
Next step
Add ISO/IEC 42001 to the work you already did
Apply both frameworks in one workspace and see the overlap measured against the controls you already hold.