Crosswalk pair
AI Governance Essentials and ISO/IEC 42001, control by control
2 canonical controls in Keel’s library satisfy clauses of both AI Governance Essentials 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.
3
In Keel’s library for AI Governance Essentials
67% of them also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
16
In Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001
13% of them also map to AI Governance Essentials.
5
Evidence artifacts expected
Across the shared controls, from Keel’s evidence guidance. Gathered once.
-
2 controls of 3 in Keel’s library for AI Governance Essentials also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
-
ISO/IEC 42001 13%
2 controls of 16 in Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001 also map to AI Governance Essentials.
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 | AI Governance Essentials clauses | ISO/IEC 42001 clauses |
|---|---|---|
| Governance & Risk | ||
| AI system impact assessment A process to assess the potential impacts of AI systems on individuals, groups, and society, and to document and act on the results. | RM.1, RM.2 | A.5.2, A.5.4 |
| Human oversight of AI Appropriate human oversight of AI systems, so people can understand, monitor, and intervene in how an AI system operates - the named people who hold that oversight have the competence, the authority and the access to the system to exercise it, and the system is operated in the way the instructions supplied with it specify, inside the purpose it was assessed and approved for rather than whatever use it turns out to support. | HO.1, HO.2 | A.6.2.6, A.9.2 |
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 — an absence, not a judgment about that standard.
Also reached by these 2 controls
- Amazon Appstore Child-Directed Apps
- Apple App Store Kids Category
- CIS Critical Security Controls
- COPPA
- ESG Essentials
- EU AI Act
- GDPR
- Google Play Families
- HIPAA
- ISO 9001
- ISO/IEC 27001
- NIST AI Risk Management Framework
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework
- NIST SP 800-171
- NIST SP 800-53
- PCI DSS
- SOC 2
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404
- US Employment Law - Federal Baseline
Nearby pairs
- ISO/IEC 42001 and EU AI Act 7 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 42001 and NIST AI Risk Management Framework 6 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 42001 and ISO 9001 3 shared controls
- AI Governance Essentials and NIST AI Risk Management Framework 2 shared controls
- ISO/IEC 42001 and ISO/IEC 27001 2 shared controls
- AI Governance Essentials and EU AI Act 1 shared control
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 AI Governance Essentials. 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.