Crosswalk pair
ISO/IEC 42001 and SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404, control by control
1 canonical control in Keel’s library satisfies clauses of both ISO/IEC 42001 and SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404. 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.
1
Controls that satisfy both
Canonical controls that crosswalk to at least one clause of each.
16
In Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001
6% of them also map to SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404.
29
In Keel’s library for SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404
3% of them also map to ISO/IEC 42001.
4
Evidence artifacts expected
Across the shared controls, from Keel’s evidence guidance. Gathered once.
-
1 control of 16 in Keel’s library for ISO/IEC 42001 also maps to SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404.
-
SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 3%
1 control of 29 in Keel’s library for SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 also maps to ISO/IEC 42001.
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 | ISO/IEC 42001 clauses | SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 clauses |
|---|---|---|
| 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 programme 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 judgement rather than a self-assessment. The results of each audit go to the management responsible for the area audited, and the programme and its results are retained as evidence that it ran. | 9.2 | P16 |
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 this control
- AI Governance Essentials
- 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
- US Employment Law - Federal Baseline
Nearby pairs
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and ISO/IEC 27001 24 shared controls
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and SOC 2 23 shared controls
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and NIST SP 800-53 20 shared controls
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and HIPAA 16 shared controls
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and PCI DSS 16 shared controls
- SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 and NIST Cybersecurity Framework 15 shared controls
The thesis
Why this is one project, not two
On a crosswalk-native model, SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 mostly lights up controls you already built for ISO/IEC 42001. 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 SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley) Section 404 to the work you already did
Apply both frameworks in one workspace and see the overlap measured against the controls you already hold.