Compliance

    Frameworks overlap far more than they differ. The efficient path is one internal control set, mapped outward, evidenced automatically wherever possible.

    Updated

    Principles

    • Map once, report many: control-to-framework mapping rather than parallel programmes.
    • Evidence at the source: pull from cloud config, ticketing and identity systems instead of writing narratives.
    • Documentation that gets used — an 80% reduction in security documentation volume in a previous role improved compliance rather than harming it.
    • Regulatory clocks as engineering requirements: DORA's 4h/72h/1-month major-incident path and NIS2's near-identical 24h/72h/1-month path were deliberately aligned, so one detection-to-escalation design serves both.

    1Internal control set

    • Access control
    • Logging
    • Third-party risk
    • Resilience testing

    2Mapped to

    • DORA
    • NIS2
    • ISO 27001
    • GDPR
    • EU AI Act

    3Evidence source

    • Cloud config
    • Identity logs
    • Change records
    • Test reports

    4Output

    • Audit evidence pack
    • Gap register
    • Remediation plan
    Control set mapped to multiple regimes

    Frequently asked questions

    Where do most programmes fail?

    Evidence freshness. Design passes, operating effectiveness fails, because nobody owns the recurring proof.

    Do regulatory delays change the plan?

    Rarely the underlying obligation. The 2026 Digital Omnibus pushed the EU AI Act's Annex III high-risk deadline to December 2027, but Article 50 transparency duties still land on schedule — a delay is a reason to re-check scope, not to stop working.