iso 42001 certification

ISO/IEC 42001 is the international management system standard for governing the development, deployment, and operation of artificial intelligence (AI) systems, analogous to ISO 27001 but focused on AI risk, ethics, and lifecycle governance.¹²

What ISO 42001 certification is

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 specifies requirements for establishing, implementing, maintaining, and continually improving an Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) within an organization.²¹
It targets organizations that provide, develop, or use AI-based products or services, and emphasizes responsible, transparent, and accountable AI practices across the AI lifecycle.³⁴²
Certification is performed by accredited third‑party auditors who validate that your AIMS meets the standard’s requirements and is effectively implemented in practice.⁴³

Why organizations pursue it

Demonstrates commitment to ethical, trustworthy, and accountable AI, which can be important for regulators, customers, and enterprise buyers (especially in regulated sectors).⁵³⁴
Provides a structured framework for managing AI risks (bias, safety, security, privacy, transparency) in a way that aligns with international “responsible AI” expectations.⁶⁵⁴
Integrates with existing management systems such as ISO 27001 (ISMS) and ISO 9001 (QMS), so you can extend existing governance rather than inventing parallel structures.⁵³

High‑level requirements

While you need the standard text for exact clauses, conceptually you must:

Define scope and context of your AIMS: which AI systems, roles (provider/producer/user), sites, and processes are in scope.³⁶⁵
Establish AI governance structures: roles, responsibilities, and decision‑making processes for AI risk, ethics, and incident handling.⁵³
Implement risk and impact assessment methods specifically tailored to AI (including fairness, explainability, safety, and privacy aspects).⁴³⁵
Define and implement policies, controls, and procedures across the AI lifecycle: data management, model development, testing, deployment, monitoring, and decommissioning.³⁴⁵
Monitor, audit, and continually improve the AIMS, including management review, internal audits, corrective actions, and metrics.⁶⁴⁵³

Certification process at a glance

Commonly described steps to certification:

Preparation and gap analysis
- Understand ISO 42001 requirements and map them against your current AI governance, model‑risk management, and existing ISO frameworks.⁶⁵³
- Determine AIMS scope, identify in‑scope AI systems, and perform a risk assessment and formal gap analysis against Annex A controls (control objectives and controls).⁴⁵³⁶
Design and implementation of AIMS
- Develop or update AI policies, procedures, risk assessment templates, and control implementations.⁵³⁶
- Operationalize processes for AI lifecycle management, data governance, monitoring, incident handling, and documentation required by the standard.³⁴⁵
Internal audit and management review
- Conduct internal audits against ISO 42001 requirements to verify readiness and identify nonconformities and improvement opportunities.⁵³
- Perform management reviews to ensure leadership is engaged and that AI objectives, risks, and performance are evaluated regularly.³⁵
Stage 1 external audit
- Stage 1 is a documentation and design readiness review focusing on AIMS scope, policies, risk methodology, and governance structures.⁴³
- The auditor may raise Areas of Concern (AOCs) or nonconformities that you must address before Stage 2.³
Stage 2 external audit
- Stage 2 evaluates operational effectiveness: interviews, evidence sampling, and control testing across the AIMS and AI lifecycle.⁴³
- After resolving any nonconformities, the certification body issues the ISO 42001 certificate, typically valid for 3 years.⁴³
Surveillance and recertification
- Annual surveillance audits (years 2–3) review selected clauses and controls and verify continual improvement of the AIMS.³⁴
- A full recertification audit is required in year 4 to maintain certification.⁴³

Example: hyperscalers and early adopters

Providers like Microsoft have already obtained ISO/IEC 42001 certification for services such as Microsoft 365 Copilot, using it as external validation of their responsible AI frameworks and risk management across the AI lifecycle.⁷
Cloud and security organizations highlight ISO 42001 as the first international standard specifically for responsible AI management, covering transparency, accountability, fairness/bias, security/safety, and privacy concerns.³⁴

Next‑step prompts you can use

You mentioned you often chain 3–5 iterations and care about focused prompts. Here are some targeted follow‑ups you can drop in:

For a SaaS AI platform (like yours): “Design an ISO/IEC 42001‑aligned AIMS architecture for a multi‑tenant, agentic AI SaaS platform in healthcare, including roles, core processes, and control families, assuming ISO 27001 is already in place.”
For implementation detail: “Map ISO/IEC 42001 core requirements and Annex A control themes to concrete technical and process controls for LLM‑based multi‑agent systems (data governance, model lifecycle, monitoring, incident response).”
For audit readiness: “Produce a Stage‑1 ISO/IEC 42001 readiness checklist and evidence list for an organization operating LLM agents on top of GCP with existing SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certifications.”
For integration with existing standards: “Describe how to integrate an ISO 42001 AIMS with existing ISO 27001 and SOC 2 controls, highlighting overlaps, gaps specific to AI, and a minimal set of new artifacts to maintain.”

If you tell me your current compliance stack (e.g., ISO 27001, SOC 2, HIPAA) and the AI workloads you run (LLM agents, RL, embedded models in products), I can help you draft a concrete ISO 42001 control and evidence plan tailored to your environment. ⁸⁹¹⁰

⁂

“Design an ISO/IEC 42001‑aligned AIMS architecture for a multi‑tenant, agentic AI SaaS platform in healthcare, including roles, core processes, and control families, assuming ISO 27001 is already in place.”

For implementation detail: “Map ISO/IEC 42001 core requirements and Annex A control themes to concrete technical and process controls for LLM‑based multi‑agent systems (data governance, model lifecycle, monitoring, incident response).” For audit readiness: “Produce a Stage‑1 ISO/IEC 42001 readiness checklist and evidence list for an organization operating LLM agents on top of GCP with existing SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certifications.” For integration with existing standards: “Describe how to integrate an ISO 42001 AIMS with existing ISO 27001 and SOC 2 controls, highlighting overlaps, gaps specific to AI, and a minimal set of new artifacts to maintain.” draft a concrete ISO 42001 control and evidence plan tailored to your environment. EXPAND on ISO 27001 What are the 6 key steps to achieve ISO 42001 certification What are the main benefits of ISO 42001 certification How does ISO 42001 compare to ISO 27001 Which companies have achieved ISO 42001 certification EXPAND on SOC1 & SOC 2

ISO 42001 extends your existing ISO 27001/SOC stack into AI governance, with a dedicated AI management system (AIMS), AI‑specific risks, and lifecycle controls for LLM/agentic workloads.¹¹¹²¹³

6 key steps to ISO 42001 certification

Baseline “6 steps” pattern (CSA, Vanta, DNV, etc.).¹⁴¹⁵¹⁶

Get the relevant parties on board
- Secure exec sponsorship, define business drivers, appoint AIMS owner and cross‑functional AI governance group.¹⁵¹⁴
Perform risk assessment and gap analysis
- Map AI use cases, perform AI risk/impact assessments (ethics, bias, safety, privacy, security), compare current practices to ISO 42001 requirements and Annex A themes.¹⁷¹⁸¹⁴
Work on policies, objectives, and controls
- Define AI policy, AIMS scope/objectives, risk methodology, and AI lifecycle control set (data, models, monitoring, human oversight, transparency, incident response).¹⁹¹⁴¹⁷
Set up monitoring and documentation
- Implement continuous monitoring, metrics, logging, and evidence for AI risk management, data/model governance, testing, and incidents.¹⁴¹⁷¹⁵
Prepare for external audit
- Run internal audits and management reviews, remediate nonconformities, and package the AIMS documentation/evidence for Stage 1/2.²⁰¹⁷¹⁴
Post‑certification maintenance
- Operate the AIMS, run surveillance‑audit cycles, improve controls based on incidents, monitoring, and technology changes.¹⁶¹⁷¹⁴

Main benefits of ISO 42001

Commonly cited benefits across multiple sources.²¹²²²³²⁴²⁵¹⁵

Stronger AI risk management (bias, misuse, safety, explainability, data misuse) via structured AI risk and impact assessments and lifecycle controls.²³¹⁹¹⁴
Increased stakeholder trust and market differentiation by demonstrating responsible AI governance with third‑party certification.²²²⁵²¹
Better regulatory alignment with emerging AI laws and sectoral rules, providing a defensible “reasonable controls” story.²³¹⁹
Operational efficiency and consistency across AI initiatives through standardized processes, documentation, and oversight.²⁴²¹²²
Easier integration with existing ISMS/QMS/priv‑by‑design frameworks, leveraging similar management‑system structure.²⁶¹³²⁴

ISO 42001 vs ISO 27001

High‑level comparison, then a quick table.²⁷²⁸¹²¹³¹¹²⁶

ISO 27001: Information Security Management System (ISMS) for any information assets, risk‑based security controls, Annex A (e.g., A.5–A.8 in 2022 revision).¹³
ISO 42001: Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) for organizations providing/using AI systems, focused on AI‑specific risk, ethics, lifecycle governance.¹¹¹³
Both: management‑system structure (context, leadership, planning, support, operation, performance evaluation, improvement), risk management, documented policies, internal audit, continual improvement.²⁸²⁹¹³

Focus and evidence comparison

Aspect	ISO 27001 (ISMS)	ISO 42001 (AIMS)
Primary focus	Confidentiality, integrity, availability of information assets.¹³	Responsible/ethical AI governance and AI‑specific risks.¹¹¹³
Scope objects	Data, infra, apps, people, processes.¹³	AI systems, data and models, AI lifecycle processes.¹¹
Risk management	Broad infosec risk methodology, threat‑centric.¹³	AI risk and impact (bias, explainability, misuse, safety).¹¹²⁷
Annex/control themes	Technical/organizational controls (access control, crypto, ops security, supplier risk, etc.).¹³	Governance and lifecycle controls (AI use case definition, data/model governance, human oversight, transparency, monitoring).¹¹¹⁹
Typical evidence	Risk registers, SoA, access logs, backup/DR tests, vulnerability mgmt, awareness training records.¹²	AI risk/impact assessments, model cards/docs, data lineage, evaluation/monitoring logs, AI incident records, ethics committee minutes.¹²¹⁹
Who should adopt	Any org needing mature infosec posture.¹³	Orgs building/using material AI capabilities (platforms, regulated workloads, high‑risk AI).¹¹²³

For you, ISO 27001 covers platform security; ISO 42001 adds AI‑specific governance, especially for multi‑agent orchestration and consequence‑sensitive operations.

Companies with ISO 42001 certification

Examples of early adopters (not exhaustive).³⁰³¹³²³³

Hyperscalers and major cloud platforms:
- AWS for AI services like Amazon Bedrock, Amazon Q Business, Textract, Transcribe.³²
- Google Cloud Platform, Google Workspace, and Gemini services.³¹
- Multiple sources also group “AWS, Google Cloud, and Microsoft Azure” as ISO 42001‑certified AI platforms.³⁰
Other early adopters:
- CSA and consulting sources mention “first 30 companies worldwide” including Google, Microsoft, and security/automation vendors such as Swimlane (42001, 27001, 27701 “trifecta”).³³
- A variety of high‑growth AI SaaS vendors now pursue or hold ISO 42001 to satisfy enterprise procurement and RFP requirements.²³³⁰

Deepening ISO 27001 (since you asked to expand)

Key concepts you likely know but useful when aligning with 42001.²⁹²⁶¹³

Core: ISO 27001 specifies requirements for an Information Security Management System (ISMS) driven by risk assessment, SoA, and continuous improvement.¹³
Controls (ISO 27001:2022 Annex A) organized into themes such as organizational, people, physical, and technological controls (updated from the old A.5–A.18 structure).²⁹¹³
Typical artifacts: information security policy, risk assessment methodology and registers, SoA, asset inventory, access control procedures, cryptography standards, operations security, supplier security, incident mgmt, business continuity, internal audit and management review records.¹³²⁹

Integration insight: your 27001 risk process, SoA, change management, and incident mgmt can be extended with AI‑specific risks and controls rather than duplicated, then referenced from the AIMS.¹²²⁶

SOC 1 vs SOC 2 (expanded)

SOC reports are attestation engagements under AICPA’s System and Organization Controls framework.³⁴³⁵

SOC 1
- Focus: controls relevant to Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR).³⁵³⁴
- Use case: payroll, billing, transaction processing, financial systems where your controls could impact customers’ financial statements.³⁴³⁵
- Types: Type I (design only at a point in time), Type II (design + operating effectiveness over a period, typically 6–12 months).³⁶³⁵
SOC 2
- Focus: security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy (Trust Services Criteria).³⁴
- Use case: SaaS, cloud, IT service providers handling customer data and system availability.³⁵³⁴
- Types: Type I and Type II, often more demanding on control operation and evidence because of longer observation windows.³⁶³⁵

For an AI SaaS like yours, SOC 2 Type II (security + availability + confidentiality at minimum) is the primary report; SOC 1 is usually only relevant if you directly impact customers’ financial reporting (e.g., revenue systems, claims adjudication).

Next: control & evidence plan tailored to a multi‑tenant agentic AI platform

If you want a concrete, environment‑specific ISO 42001/27001/SOC‑aligned control and evidence matrix for LLM‑based multi‑agent systems on GCP, I’ll need a bit of detail so we can make it precise instead of generic.

Reply with:

Your current stack:
- GCP services (GKE, Cloud Run, Vertex AI, BigQuery, Cloud SQL/Spanner, Pub/Sub, etc.).
- Model landscape (Vertex + external APIs like OpenAI/Anthropic/Gemini, internal fine‑tunes, vector DBs).
Your regulatory perimeter:
- PHI/PII? HIPAA BAA? EU data subjects (GDPR)? Any medical device / SaMD angle?
Your current certifications/reports:
- ISO 27001 scope, SOC 2 TSC in scope, any 27701/9001/22301?
Your agentic patterns:
- Long‑running tools (code execution, RPA, external APIs), autonomous tasking vs human‑in‑the‑loop, production vs “lab” environments.

With that, I can draft:

An AIMS architecture with roles, governance bodies, and workflows anchored on your existing ISMS/SOC structure.
A control‑by‑control mapping from ISO 42001 core/Annex themes to specific platform controls (LLM gateway, policy engine, logging, evals, red teaming, change mgmt, etc.).
A Stage‑1 evidence checklist that lines up with your GCP + SOC 2 + ISO 27001 artefacts. ³⁷³⁸³⁹⁴⁰

⁂

How to conduct AI risk assessment for healthcare multi-tenant AI platform

What healthcare-specific controls for ISO 42001 AIMS Implementation checklist for ISO 42001 Phase 2 operationalization How to integrate ISO 42001 with existing ISO 27001 in SaaS Examples of agentic AI use cases compliant with ISO 42001 healthcare

AI risk assessment for a healthcare multi‑tenant agentic platform should be a structured extension of your existing risk engine, with healthcare‑specific impact criteria, AI‑specific threats, and strong lifecycle controls under ISO 42001 integrated into your ISMS.⁴¹⁴²⁴³

1. AI risk assessment for healthcare multi‑tenant AI platform

For each AI use case (per tenant and shared services), run a dedicated AI risk and impact assessment.

1. Define scope and context⁴²⁴³

Identify AI systems (LLM agents, triage bots, coding assistants, workflow optimizers) and their clinical/business role.
Classify by risk: influences diagnosis, treatment, triage, billing, patient communications, back‑office analytics.

2. Identify stakeholders and data⁴¹⁴²

Stakeholders: clinicians, patients, compliance, DPO, security, tenants’ admins, regulators.
Data: PHI vs non‑PHI, PII categories, cross‑tenant data flows, training vs inference data, logs and audit trails.

3. Identify AI‑specific risks⁴⁴⁴³⁴¹ Use a structured catalogue across categories:

Clinical safety: unsafe recommendations, over‑reliance, hallucinations in clinical notes or triage advice.
Algorithmic bias: disparate performance across demographics, language, insurance class.⁴²⁴¹
Data and model integrity: data poisoning, prompt injection, jailbreaks, tampering with model parameters or vector DBs.⁴³⁴¹
Privacy and confidentiality: re‑identification, leakage of PHI in outputs, log exposure, cross‑tenant data access.⁴¹⁴²
Explainability and transparency: inability to justify recommendations for clinicians and auditors.⁴²⁴¹
Operational risk: model drift, infra failures, resiliency, fail‑safe behavior, mis‑routing across tenants.⁴⁵⁴¹
Ethical/legal: use beyond stated indication, secondary use of data without consent, regulatory misalignment.

4. Assess likelihood and impact using healthcare criteria⁴⁶⁴⁴⁴³

Impact axis explicitly includes: patient harm (clinical), data breach severity, regulatory sanctions, reputational harm, tenant contractual impact.
Likelihood considers: exposure surface (internet‑facing vs internal), control maturity, attack feasibility, complexity.
Rate risks and prioritize by clinical and regulatory impact rather than purely financial.

5. Define and select treatments (controls)⁴⁷⁴⁴⁴³

Map each high‑risk scenario to technical, organizational, and process controls (see sections 2 and 3 below).
Decide: avoid (don’t deploy), reduce (controls), transfer (contracts/insurance), or accept (with justification).

6. Document and integrate into AIMS and ISMS⁴³⁴¹

Maintain AI Risk Assessment records per system (versioned, tenant‑specific where relevant) with treatment plans, residual risk, and sign‑off.⁴³⁴²
Link to change management, clinical safety review, DPIA/algorithmic impact assessment, and ISO 27001 risk registers.

7. Continuous monitoring and re‑assessment

Trigger re‑assessment on model changes, new data sources, new clinical usage, significant incidents, or tenant onboarding.⁴⁵⁴¹⁴³

2. Healthcare‑specific ISO 42001 AIMS controls (what’s special vs generic AI)

Using healthcare‑oriented guidance and ISO 42001 healthcare commentaries as a basis.⁴⁸⁴¹⁴²

Governance and accountability

Clinical safety governance: defined Clinical Safety Officer / Medical Director responsible for AI‑assisted workflows; integration with clinical safety committees.⁴⁵⁴²
AI clinical use policy: clear limits on where AI can and cannot be used (no unsupervised diagnosis; augmentation only, etc.).⁴²
Algorithmic impact / clinical impact assessments: AI‑specific analogs to DPIAs including patient‑safety impact, bias review, and workflow analysis.⁴⁵⁴²

Data protection and PHI handling

PHI segregation per tenant (logical and access‑control level), minimization of PHI in prompts/training, PHI redaction where possible.⁴¹⁴²
Strong data lineage for all clinical outputs: which model version, data sources, agents/tools, and prompts influenced outputs.⁴¹⁴²
Explicit controls for secondary use of data (R&D models, foundation model fine‑tunes) with consent and de‑identification.⁴²⁴¹

Model lifecycle and validation

Clinical validation: verification and validation protocols, test sets curated for clinical relevance and bias evaluation, sign‑off by clinical experts prior to deployment.⁴⁵⁴¹
Medical device alignment: for high‑risk uses, alignment with applicable SaMD or local regulatory expectations (e.g., FDA/EMA) and documentation for audits.⁴⁸⁴⁵
Change control: formal approvals and regression testing for model updates, prompt/policy changes, tool additions, and agent graph changes in clinical workflows.⁴¹⁴⁵

Human oversight

Strong “human‑in‑the‑loop” requirements: clinicians remain decision‑makers; UI emphasizes that AI suggestions are advisory; simple override mechanisms.⁴²⁴¹
Escalation path: clinicians and tenants can flag unsafe outputs, misbehavior, bias; triage and corrective mechanisms are documented.⁴¹⁴²

Monitoring and incident management

Continuous safety/performance monitoring: clinical KPIs, bias metrics, drift indicators, error rates per cohort and tenant.⁴⁵⁴¹
AI incident taxonomy: near‑miss, adverse event, bias incident, security incident, privacy incident, with root‑cause analysis and CAPA.⁴²⁴¹

3. ISO 42001 Phase 2 operationalization checklist (Stage 2 prep)

Phase 2 here = executing the blueprint and making controls “live,” per several checklists.⁴⁹⁵⁰⁵¹⁴⁷

A. Governance and structure

AIMS scope finalized (including healthcare services/tenants, AI systems, boundaries) and documented.⁵²⁵¹
AI governance body (including clinical, security, privacy, product, engineering) chartered with meeting cadence and minutes.⁵¹⁴⁹
AI policy, healthcare AI policy addendum, and code of conduct published and communicated.⁵¹⁴²

B. Risk, lifecycle, and controls “live”

AI risk assessment methodology approved and in use for all in‑scope AI systems.⁴⁶⁴³
AI system inventory complete with risk classification, data categories, tenant mapping, and lifecycle status.⁵²⁴²
Model development, testing, deployment, and retirement procedures implemented (tickets, checklists, gates).⁴⁷⁴⁵
Data governance controls active: DLP/PHI handling for prompts/logs, data access reviews, tenant data isolation.⁴¹⁴²
Human oversight procedures implemented in UI and SOPs (disclaimer language, override, escalation).⁴²⁴¹

C. Monitoring, metrics, and incidents

Live metrics: safety, bias, performance, utilization per AI system; dashboards accessible to governance and clinical safety owners.⁴⁵⁴¹
AI incident management integrated into existing incident program, with runbooks and AI‑specific categories.⁵¹⁴¹
Log and audit trail configuration validated (immutability, retention, access control) for AI decisions and changes.⁴¹⁴²

D. Training, awareness, and vendors

Training delivered for engineers, data scientists, clinicians, support (AI risk, responsible use, PHI in prompts, escalation).⁵¹⁴¹
Third‑party AI vendors (LLM APIs, model providers, tools) risk‑assessed and contractual safeguards in place.⁴⁷⁵²

E. Internal audit and management review readiness

Internal audit for AIMS completed, nonconformities tracked and addressed.⁴⁹⁵¹
Management review performed with AIMS KPIs, incidents, risk status, and improvement plans.⁵⁰⁴⁹

4. Integrating ISO 42001 with existing ISO 27001 in SaaS

Treat 42001 as an overlay on your ISMS rather than a separate system.⁵³⁵⁴⁵⁵

Align management‑system clauses

Use the same: context analysis, risk methodology, leadership roles, document control, internal audit, management review, continual improvement.⁵⁴⁵²
Extend existing risk registers with AI‑specific entries, referenced from AIMS risk assessments.⁵⁴⁴³

Reuse control environment where possible

Reuse ISO 27001 controls for: access management, logging, secure development, change management, vendor security, BC/DR.⁵⁵⁵⁴
Add AI‑specific controls: AI system inventory, model risk management, bias monitoring, AI incident types, human oversight, transparency artifacts.⁵⁶⁵⁷⁵³

Shared artifacts vs new artifacts

Shared: policies (with AI addenda), risk methodology, incident response, vendor management, training framework, SoA.⁵³⁵⁴
New: AI policy and clinical AI policy, AI risk assessment templates, AI inventory, model cards, impact assessments, AI metrics dashboards, AI incident log.⁵⁶⁴²

Minimal new artifacts to maintain

AIMS scope statement and AI policy.
AI system register with risk classification.
AI risk/impact assessment reports per system.
Model documentation (model cards, test/validation reports).
AI monitoring/evaluation reports and incident registers.

5. Examples of ISO 42001‑aligned agentic AI use cases in healthcare

These are patterns you can design to be “42001‑compatible” with appropriate controls.⁴⁵⁴²⁴¹

Clinical documentation assistant
- Agent(s) generate draft encounter notes, discharge summaries, or coding suggestions from clinician‑entered data and EHR context.
- Controls: PHI‑constrained prompts, clinician review and sign‑off, validation on representative clinical corpora, hallucination guardrails and disclaimers, detailed audit trails.⁴⁵⁴¹
Patient triage and routing assistant (with strict oversight)
- Multi‑agent system collects symptoms, cross‑checks decision trees, and proposes triage category or routing (e.g., urgent care vs telehealth vs self‑care), with nurse/clinician reviewing outputs.⁴¹⁴⁵
- Controls: risk classification as high‑impact, strong clinical validation, conservative operating thresholds, mandatory human approval for outcome, incident monitoring for mis‑triage.⁴²⁴¹
Prior authorization / coding support agent
- Agentic workflow that ingests clinical documentation and payer rules to generate draft prior auth requests or suggested billing codes.⁴¹
- Controls: segregation of payer policies by tenant, PHI minimization in prompts, human validation by revenue‑cycle staff, monitoring for systematic miscoding.⁴²⁴¹
Operational optimization bots (lower‑risk)
- Agents optimize scheduling, bed management, or staff allocation using de‑identified or aggregated data.⁴⁵⁴¹
- Controls: de‑identification of PHI, clear data aggregation rules, impact assessment for fairness and bias (e.g., not systematically deprioritizing certain cohorts).⁴²⁴¹
Clinical knowledge retrieval assistant
- LLM tools retrieving guideline content, formulary data, and internal protocols to support clinician decision‑making, not to replace it.
- Controls: curated sources, RAG with citation requirements, disclaimers, usage limited to licensed users, logging of queries and outputs for review.⁴⁵⁴¹

If you want, next step I can draft a compact control–evidence matrix (columns: ISO 42001 theme, control objective, concrete implementation for an LLM multi‑agent GCP stack, evidence artifacts) that you can plug directly into your internal AIMS/ISMS tooling. ⁵⁸

⁂

EXPAND on ISO 27001 controls for: access management, logging, secure development, change management, vendor security, BC/DR. Common pitfalls in ISO 42001 risk assessment for multi-tenant healthcare AI

Sample templates for healthcare AI clinical impact assessments How to handle data privacy in multi-tenant AI under ISO 42001 Bias mitigation controls for healthcare AI models ISO 42001 Verification and validation processes for healthcare AI per ISO 42001

ISO 27001 gives you the hard security spine (access, logs, SDLC, change, vendors, BC/DR); ISO 42001 layers AI‑specific risk, impact assessment, and lifecycle controls on top, with extra healthcare and multi‑tenant sensitivities.⁵⁹⁶⁰⁶¹⁶²

1. ISO 27001 controls (deep dive on the six areas)

These are the levers you’ll reuse directly for AIMS.

1.1 Access management

Annex A themes: access control policy, user access management, system/application access control, user responsibilities.⁶⁰⁶³⁵⁹

Key expectations
- Formal access control policy aligned with least privilege and role‑based access to information assets and services.⁶³⁵⁹
- Joiner‑mover‑leaver process, periodic access reviews, strong authentication, and segregation of duties for privileged roles.⁵⁹⁶³
- Application‑level controls: fine‑grained roles in the SaaS app, admin vs clinical vs support vs tenant roles, with PHI‑aware scoping.
How it supports ISO 42001 AIMS
- Restricts who can access AI configuration (prompts, tools, model routing), AI logs, training/eval datasets, and PHI used by AI agents.
- Forms the base for tenant isolation and preventing cross‑tenant leakage via shared AI services.

1.2 Logging and monitoring

ISO 27001 requires audit logging, monitoring system use, and protecting log integrity.⁶⁴⁵⁹

Key expectations
- Logs for user activities, security events, admin/ops actions, retained for agreed periods; protection against tampering; regular log review.⁶⁴
- Monitoring of system use and correlation with incidents and changes.⁶⁴
How it supports AIMS
- Evidence of AI decisions and actions: prompts, model versions, tools invoked, outputs, downstream actions, and tenant context.
- Foundation for AI incident investigations (unsafe output, bias event, data leakage) and clinical safety reviews.

1.3 Secure development (SDLC)

Annex A covers security requirements in system acquisition, development, and maintenance; security in development and support processes.⁶⁵⁶³⁵⁹

Key expectations
- Secure coding practices, code review, dependency management, vulnerability scanning, security testing integrated into CI/CD.⁶⁵⁵⁹
- Security requirements defined for new systems, including data classification, access, encryption, logging, and change control.⁶³⁵⁹
How it supports AIMS
- You treat AI components (agents, tools, policy engines, model gateways) as in‑scope software with security requirements from the start.
- Allows you to embed AI‑specific checks (prompt‑injection testing, red teaming, safety evaluations) as “security tests” in the SDLC.

1.4 Change management

Change management is a key operational security control; ISO 27001 ties it to development processes and secure configuration.⁶⁶⁶³

Key expectations
- Formal procedure for requesting, assessing (including security impact), approving, implementing, and reviewing changes.⁶⁶
- Change records: risk assessment, approvals, testing results, rollback plans, and links to incidents.⁶⁶
How it supports AIMS
- All AI‑relevant changes (model version, prompt library, policy, routing, agent graph, tool addition) go through change control with AI risk lens.
- Gives auditors traceability from an AI incident back to the specific model/prompt/config change that caused it.

1.5 Vendor / supplier security

Supplier relationship controls govern what you agree and how you monitor third parties.⁵⁹⁶³

Key expectations
- Vendor risk assessment, security and privacy requirements in contracts, SLAs, right to audit, incident notification terms.⁶⁰⁶³
- Ongoing monitoring of supplier performance and security posture.⁶³⁵⁹
How it supports AIMS
- Critical for external LLM APIs, model‑hosting platforms, data providers, and downstream tools (e.g., fax, RPA, email, EHR integrations).
- Lets you assert AI‑related requirements (data residency, PHI handling, retention, training use, subprocessing) on providers, dovetailing with 42001 vendor controls.

1.6 Business continuity & disaster recovery (BC/DR)

ISO 27001 covers “information security aspects of business continuity management” and ICT readiness.⁶⁷⁶³

Key expectations
- BC plans and DR procedures, RTO/RPO definitions, testing, redundancy, and resilience of critical systems.⁶⁷⁶³
- Integration of security and continuity (e.g., fallback modes preserve confidentiality and integrity).⁶⁷
How it supports AIMS
- Ensures AI‑enabled workflows degrade safely: fallback to non‑AI workflows, manual processes, or safer models when AI services fail.
- Important for clinical contexts where AI unavailability must not create unsafe gaps in patient care.

2. Common pitfalls in ISO 42001 risk assessment for multi‑tenant healthcare AI

Patterns called out in healthcare/AI 42001 commentary and gap‑analysis work.⁶¹⁶⁸⁶⁹⁷⁰⁶²

Treating AI risk as generic infosec risk only
- Ignoring clinical safety, bias, explainability, and human factors; risk registers look like ISO 27001 clones.⁶⁹⁶¹
Assessing “the platform” but not per AI system and tenant context
- Multi‑tenant set‑ups often miss differences in usage, data, and risk class per tenant (e.g., one tenant uses AI for triage, another for back‑office analytics).⁶⁸⁶²⁶¹
Under‑specifying impact on patients and clinicians
- Impact scales use generic “high/medium/low financial impact” instead of patient harm, clinical workflow disruption, and regulatory non‑compliance.⁶⁸⁶⁹
No explicit bias and fairness risk analysis
- Bias is mentioned but not operationalized with metrics, protected attributes, and scenarios; no link to real clinical outcomes.⁷¹⁷⁰⁶¹
One‑off assessment instead of continuous
- Risk assessment done at go‑live only; no triggers for reassessment on new model versions, data sources, or clinical indications.⁶¹⁶⁸
Weak linkage to existing ISMS and clinical governance
- AI risk is siloed in “innovation teams” and not integrated with 27001 risk registers, QMS, or clinical safety committees.⁶⁹⁶¹

3. Sample templates for healthcare AI clinical impact assessment

You’ll usually combine ideas from AI impact assessment templates and healthcare AI risk guidance.⁷²⁷³⁶²⁶¹⁶⁸

Key sections (adapt/adopt into your own template):

System overview⁷³⁷²
- System name, owner, clinical sponsor, technical lead, intended purpose, target population, AI type (LLM, classification, RAG, agentic orchestrator).
Context and regulatory landscape⁷²⁶⁹
- Applicable regulations (HIPAA/GDPR, local health regs, potential SaMD classification), clinical domains, deployment settings.
Stakeholders and workflows⁷³⁷²
- Clinicians, patients, operations, IT, governance bodies; description of clinical workflows and decision points where AI intervenes.
Data and model description⁷²⁷³
- Data sources, PHI/PII categories, de‑identification status, training vs inference data, model architecture, provider, fine‑tuning, and tools.
Risk and impact analysis (structured)⁶⁸⁷³⁷²
- Clinical safety risks (misdiagnosis, delayed care, inappropriate advice).
- Bias and fairness risks per protected attributes and cohorts.
- Privacy and security risks (leakage, re‑identification, cross‑tenant exposure).
- Operational risks (availability, resilience, failure modes).
- Ethical impacts (autonomy, explainability, trust).
Risk ratings and classification⁷²⁶⁸
- Likelihood/impact matrices tuned for patient harm and regulatory impacts; global risk class (e.g., low/medium/high; mapping to SaMD risk level where relevant).
Control measures and residual risk⁷³⁷²
- Planned mitigations, residual risk rating, and justification; mapping to ISO 42001 and ISO 27001 controls.
Human oversight and accountability plan⁷³⁷²
- Who can override AI, approval flows, escalation, complaint handling, documentation that humans remain final decision makers.
Decision and sign‑off⁶⁹⁷²
- Approval, conditions (pilot limits, monitoring requirements), and review cycle.

You can base a starting form on generic AI system impact assessment procedures and extend with healthcare‑specific risk categories and SaMD‑like elements.⁶⁹⁷²⁷³

4. Data privacy in multi‑tenant AI under ISO 42001

ISO 42001 expects robust data governance plus privacy‑by‑design; healthcare AI guidance emphasizes PHI rigor and tenant isolation.⁶²⁶¹⁶⁸⁷³

Core principles for multi‑tenant AI:

Tenant isolation at every layer
- Logical separation of data stores, indexes, vector DB namespaces, and logs; enforcement via access control and, where feasible, physical/cluster separation for high‑risk tenants.⁶²⁶¹
Data minimization and prompt hygiene
- Limit PHI in prompts, context windows, and logs to what is necessary; deploy PHI masking/redaction where clinically acceptable.⁶¹⁶²
Clear data flows and lineage
- Document how PHI moves through ingestion, preprocessing, models, agents, tools, and outputs; track what is stored and for how long (including logs and traces).⁶¹⁷²⁷³
Training and secondary use controls
- Strong policies and technical controls on whether production PHI may be used for training or fine‑tuning; consent management; de‑identification standards.⁶²⁶¹
Privacy impact assessments (DPIA/PIA) linked to AI impact assessments
- For each AI system with PHI/PII, run integrated privacy and AI impact assessments; include cross‑tenant risks explicitly.⁶⁸⁶²⁷³
Third‑party AI provider restrictions
- Vendor contracts and technical configuration to prevent providers from retaining or training on PHI; ensure data residency and sub‑processor transparency.⁶³⁶²
User rights, transparency, and logging
- Ability to surface what data is processed where feasible; rights handling (access, correction, deletion) integrated with AI data stores/logs.⁶¹⁷³

5. Bias mitigation controls for healthcare AI models (ISO 42001‑aligned)

Healthcare‑focused ISO 42001 commentary and risk guides emphasize bias management as a first‑class obligation.⁷⁰⁷¹⁶⁹⁷³⁶¹

Control themes:

Representative, quality‑controlled data
- Assess datasets for demographic coverage and quality; document under‑represented groups and sampling decisions; avoid training solely on biased historical data.⁷²⁶⁹⁷³
Bias‑aware evaluation
- Evaluate performance by demographic and clinical subgroups; compare error rates and misclassification types; track metrics over time.⁷¹⁷⁰⁶⁹⁷³
Design‑time mitigations
- Reweighing, resampling, model constraints, or other fairness techniques appropriate to the task, documented with rationale.⁷⁰⁷³⁷²
Runtime monitoring and feedback loops
- Monitor production outputs for systematic disparities (e.g., triage decisions, approvals, predicted risk scores) across groups.⁷¹⁷⁰⁷³⁶¹
- Provide clinicians and tenants a mechanism to report suspected bias; route into incident/complaint workflows and CAPA.⁷³⁶¹
Governance and documentation
- Explicitly document fairness objectives, protected attributes considered, metrics used, and trade‑offs in model cards and impact assessments.⁷²⁷³
Human oversight
- For high‑risk decisions, maintain human review with clear guidance on when to override AI if bias is suspected.⁷⁰⁶⁹⁶¹

6. Verification and validation for healthcare AI under ISO 42001

Verification/validation (V&V) is where ISO 42001 connects tightly to healthcare quality and clinical safety literature.⁷¹⁶²⁶⁹⁶¹

Verification (does it meet its specs?)

Technical verification
- Unit and integration testing of agent workflows, tools, and orchestration logic; validation of constraints (e.g., PHI never leaves region).⁵⁹⁷¹
- Conformance with security requirements from ISO 27001 (auth, logging, encryption, error handling).⁶⁵⁵⁹
Requirements traceability
- Link test cases to system requirements, clinical safety requirements, and risk mitigations identified in impact assessments.⁶⁹⁷²

Validation (is it fit for clinical purpose?)

Clinical validation studies
- Retrospective and, where feasible, prospective studies using curated datasets reflecting target populations and clinical contexts.⁶¹⁶⁹
- Comparisons to standard of care; evaluation of clinical end outcomes or surrogate metrics.⁶⁹
Usability and human‑factors validation
- Testing with clinicians in realistic workflows; comprehension of outputs; risk of automation bias; UI cues supporting appropriate reliance.⁶¹⁶⁹
Environment and tenant‑specific validation
- For multi‑tenant systems, validate in representative environments or categorize tenants (e.g., outpatient clinics vs hospitals) and ensure coverage.⁶²⁶⁹⁶¹
Pre‑deployment gates and ongoing validation
- Formal go‑live criteria including acceptable performance thresholds, risk controls implemented, and sign‑off by clinical and governance bodies.⁷¹⁶²⁶¹
- Periodic re‑validation upon model changes, drift triggers, or new clinical indications; link to change management and AI risk reassessment.⁶⁸⁷¹⁶¹

If you’d like, next iteration I can condense this into a matrix (rows: ISO 27001/42001 themes; cols: “control objective”, “healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation”, “example evidence”) that you can plug directly into your Confluence/RFCs and use as your working control register. ⁷⁴

⁂

condense this into a matrix (rows: ISO 27001/42001 themes; cols: “control objective”, “healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation”, “example evidence”) that you can plug directly into your Confluence/RFCs and use as your working control register.

Here is a condensed control–evidence matrix you can drop straight into Confluence and then extend. It focuses on the themes we’ve been discussing and is phrased for a multi‑tenant healthcare, agentic AI SaaS on top of an ISO 27001 ISMS and ISO 42001 AIMS.⁷⁵⁷⁶⁷⁷⁷⁸⁷⁹

Columns: Control objective | Healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation | Example evidence

Matrix: ISO 27001 + ISO 42001 themes for healthcare multi‑tenant agentic AI

Theme (ISO 27001 / 42001)	Control objective	Healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation	Example evidence
Access management (27001 – Access control)⁷⁸⁷⁶	Ensure only authorized users and services can access PHI, AI configs, and AI logs, with least privilege and tenant isolation.	RBAC across platform and tenants (clinical, ops, support, engineering); fine‑grained roles for AI config (prompts, tools, routing); separate roles for AI ops vs infra; per‑tenant isolation in DB/vector namespaces; SSO/MFA for all admin access.	Access control policy; IAM role definitions; GCP IAM/export; role‑to‑user mappings; joiner/mover/leaver records; quarterly access review reports; sample tickets where access was revoked/changed.
Logging & monitoring (27001 – Logging, monitoring)⁷⁸⁸⁰	Provide tamper‑resistant logs of security‑relevant events and AI actions for detection, forensics, and clinical review.	Central logging for AI requests (tenant, user, prompt, model, tools used, outputs metadata), infra events, admin actions; WORM or integrity‑protected log storage; monitoring dashboards for safety incidents and anomalies; alerting on suspicious patterns.	Logging & monitoring standard; SIEM dashboards; sample log records for AI requests and agent actions; integrity controls configuration; alert definitions and incident tickets triggered by AI anomalies.
Secure development (27001 – Secure SDLC)⁷⁸⁸¹	Ensure AI platform and agents are built and maintained using secure, documented SDLC practices.	Security requirements for all AI components (gateways, agents, tools); secure coding standards; code review with security checklist; SAST/DAST on services; dependency scanning; threat modeling that explicitly covers prompt injection and data exfiltration; red‑team tests for AI behavior.	SDLC policy; threat models including AI components; CI/CD pipeline configuration showing security scans; red‑team reports and remediation tickets; code review samples with security fields completed.
Change management (27001 – Change control)⁷⁸⁸²	Control changes to AI systems (models, prompts, policies, tools, agent graphs) to prevent uncontrolled risk.	Change process that tags “AI‑impacting changes” (model version updates, routing changes, prompt library edits, tool additions); pre‑deployment AI risk check; clinical impact review for high‑risk flows; rollback and kill‑switch mechanisms for AI features per tenant.	Change management SOP; change tickets including AI risk/impact checklists; approvals from security and clinical owners; release notes linking model version to change IDs; records of rollback/kill‑switch activation.
Vendor / supplier security (27001 – Supplier relationships)⁷⁸⁸³	Ensure external AI providers and data suppliers protect PHI and support responsible AI use.	Vendor risk assessments for LLM APIs, model hosts, data providers; AI‑specific contract clauses (no training on PHI, data residency, sub‑processors, retention limits); periodic reassessment of providers; encryption and tokenization for API calls carrying PHI.	Vendor risk register; DPAs/BAAs with AI providers; contract extracts with AI‑specific clauses; vendor SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / ISO 42001 reports; results of vendor reviews and monitoring (e.g., security questionnaire, pentest summaries).
BC/DR (27001 – InfoSec aspects of BC)⁷⁶	Maintain safe and secure continuity of critical AI‑enabled healthcare workflows.	Classification of AI services by criticality; defined failover paths: graceful degradation to rule‑based or manual workflows when AI unavailable; tested DR for AI infrastructure (GCP multi‑region, backups); procedures ensuring failover does not break PHI protection or tenant isolation.	BC/DR policy; BIA including AI components; DR runbooks for AI services; DR test reports showing AI failover and fallbacks; evidence of periodic tests with outcomes and corrective actions.
AI governance & leadership (42001 – AI governance)⁷⁵⁸⁴⁷⁹	Establish accountable leadership and governance structures over AI use in healthcare.	AIMS scope covering AI services and tenants; AI governance committee including clinical, privacy, security, product; charter and cadence; AI strategy and policy (plus healthcare AI policy addendum) that define permissible use cases and prohibited uses.	AIMS scope document; AI governance charter and minutes; AI policy, clinical AI policy addendum; RACI for AI decisions; records of decisions on acceptance/rejection of AI use cases.
AI risk assessment & treatment (42001 – Risk management)⁸⁵⁸⁶⁷⁹	Identify, assess, and treat AI‑specific risks including clinical, ethical, and operational impacts per system and tenant.	AI risk assessment methodology extending ISMS risk process with clinical safety, bias, explainability, human‑factor and cross‑tenant criteria; per‑system risk assessments; mapping of risks to treatments (controls, design limitations, monitoring).	AI risk assessment procedure; completed AI risk assessments for key systems (e.g., clinical note assistant, triage agent); risk register entries with AI tags; treatment plans and residual risk justifications.
Transparency & documentation (42001 – Transparency & documentation)⁷⁵⁷⁷	Document AI systems, data, limitations, and decisions to enable explainability and auditability.	Model cards and system fact sheets describing purpose, inputs, outputs, training data, limitations; tenant‑facing documentation explaining AI behavior and appropriate use; internal docs on agent graphs and tool usage; versioned design docs linked to deployed versions.	Template for model/system cards; completed cards for production AI systems; docs in Confluence for each AI workflow; traceability from deployment artifacts (e.g., model IDs in config) to documentation versions.
Accountability & human oversight (42001 – Human oversight)⁷⁵⁷⁷	Ensure humans remain accountable for healthcare decisions and can oversee and override AI.	Defined clinical owner per AI use case; clear UX disclaimers (“AI suggestion, not diagnosis”); mandatory human review of AI outputs for high‑risk tasks (triage, treatment suggestions); escalation and override flows; training for clinicians on appropriate reliance.	Human‑oversight policy; SOPs for clinician review; UI screenshots showing disclaimers/override controls; training materials; logs evidencing human approvals in workflow; records of escalations and overrides.
AI system design & secure dev (42001 – Design & development)⁷⁵⁸⁴	Design AI systems with safety, security, and healthcare context in mind from the outset.	Design reviews that include clinical safety and AI risk checklists; threat models for AI pipelines; prompt and tool design guidelines; secure defaults (e.g., no free‑form internet tools in clinical flows); design patterns for multi‑tenant agent isolation.	Design review templates; completed design review records; threat models including AI components; architecture diagrams with tenant isolation; prompt/tool governance guidelines.
Data governance & data quality (42001 – Data governance)⁷⁵⁸⁶	Ensure PHI/clinical data used by AI is accurate, appropriate, and privacy‑preserving across tenants.	Data classification for PHI/PII; tenant‑scoped data stores and vector indices; data quality checks on clinical datasets; PHI minimization and redaction for prompts/logs; controlled pipelines for training and fine‑tuning with de‑identification and consent management.	Data classification policy; data flow diagrams showing tenant boundaries; ETL/quality check logs; de‑identification procedures and validation reports; approvals for using clinical data in model tuning; DPIA/PIA artifacts.
Deployment, monitoring & AI ops (42001 – Deployment & operations)⁷⁵⁸⁵	Safely deploy and operate AI systems with continuous monitoring and controlled rollout.	Staged deployment (dev/test/pilot/prod) with gates; canary or per‑tenant rollout; monitoring of performance, safety, and bias metrics; drift detection; health checks on agentic workflows; rollback/kill‑switch capabilities at tenant and system level.	Deployment SOP; CI/CD pipelines with promotion gates; monitoring dashboards; bias/safety metric reports; documented examples of rollbacks or tenant‑specific disablement following issues.
AI safety & technical robustness (42001 – Safety & robustness)⁷⁵⁸⁷	Maintain robust, fail‑safe behavior for AI agents in clinical contexts.	Guardrails and policy engines for prompts; tools whitelisted with least privilege; sandboxed execution for tools that can affect external systems; adversarial testing for prompt injection, hallucinations, and unsafe content; conservative defaults for clinical decisions.	Guardrail configuration; tool whitelist docs; sandboxing architecture; test cases and results from safety/red‑team exercises; issue tracker items showing fixes for discovered vulnerabilities.
AI incident management (42001 – AI incident mgmt)⁷⁵⁷⁷	Detect, classify, investigate, and remediate AI‑related incidents including safety, bias, and privacy.	AI incident taxonomy (unsafe output, mis‑triage, bias event, PHI leakage, model failure); integration with existing incident process; runbooks for AI incidents; requirement to log all AI incidents with root‑cause analysis and CAPA.	AI incident management procedure; incident tickets with AI tags; post‑incident reports; CAPA records; trend reports on AI incidents and improvements.
Bias & fairness management (42001 – Risk & impacts)⁸⁶⁸⁵⁸⁷	Identify, monitor, and mitigate bias in healthcare AI models and workflows.	Definition of protected attributes and clinical cohorts; dataset audits; fairness metrics; pre‑deployment bias evaluations; in‑production monitoring for disparities (e.g., triage outcomes by demographic); bias review board or integration into AI governance.	Bias/fairness policy; dataset audit reports; pre‑deployment bias evaluation results; periodic fairness dashboards; minutes from governance meetings where bias issues were reviewed and actions taken.
Stakeholder communication & regulatory compliance (42001 – Stakeholder & compliance)⁷⁵⁷⁹	Inform tenants, clinicians, and patients appropriately and meet healthcare/AI regulatory obligations.	Tenant‑level AI use statements; customer‑facing documentation on AI limitations and data use; processes to notify tenants of material model/policy changes; mapping of AI systems to regulatory classifications (e.g., AI Act/ SaMD) with compliance actions.	Customer‑facing docs and FAQs; contract language about AI features; change‑notification emails or release notes; regulatory mapping document for AI systems; records of regulatory/compliance reviews.
Continuous improvement & audits (27001 + 42001 – PDCA)⁷⁶⁷⁵⁸⁸	Continually improve the ISMS and AIMS using monitoring, incidents, audits, and reviews.	Combined ISMS/AIMS internal audit plan; periodic audits that include AI controls; management reviews covering AI KPIs, incidents, and roadmap; backlog of improvements prioritized by risk and clinical impact.	Audit program and completed audit reports; management review minutes; improvement backlog and tracking; decisions and actions taken from AI‑related findings.

You can copy this into Confluence and then:

Add a column for “Control owner” and another for “Status/Maturity” (e.g., Planned / In design / Implemented / Monitored).
Duplicate rows per specific AI system (e.g., “Clinical Note Assistant”, “Triage Bot”), linking to their AI risk and clinical impact assessments.

If you tell me your actual stack (e.g., GKE + Vertex AI + BigQuery + X LLM providers), I can refine the “implementation” and “evidence” cells into concrete GCP services, Terraform resources, and log/metric names. ⁸⁹⁹⁰⁹¹⁹²⁹³⁹⁴⁹⁵⁹⁶

⁂

EXPAND on SOC 1 & SOC 2 controls certification and processes actual stack (e.g., GKE + Vertex AI + BigQuery + X LLM providers), I can refine the “implementation” and “evidence” cells into concrete GCP services, Terraform resources, and log/metric names. Template for populating the matrix with specific Annex A controls

How to customize matrix for HIPAA compliance in healthcare AI Example filled matrix row for AI risk assessment control Checklist to validate matrix evidence for ISO 42001 audit Confluence macro to render and filter the controls matrix

SOC 1/SOC 2 extend assurance on your controls, while ISO 27001/42001/HIPAA give you normative requirements; the matrix becomes your unifying “control register” across all of them.⁹⁷⁹⁸⁹⁹¹⁰⁰

1. SOC 1 & SOC 2 controls and processes (healthcare SaaS context)

SOC 1 vs SOC 2 focus

SOC 1: controls relevant to customers’ financial reporting (ICFR) – usually only in scope if your platform directly affects financial statements (billing, claims adjudication, revenue systems).¹⁰¹¹⁰²¹⁰³
SOC 2: controls aligned to AICPA Trust Services Criteria – Security (required), plus optionally Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy; core for healthcare SaaS handling PHI.¹⁰³⁹⁸⁹⁷

SOC 2 control structure (what you implement)

Common criteria: control environment, risk assessment, communication, monitoring, logical access, change management, system operations, incident management, vendor management.¹⁰⁴¹⁰³⁹⁷
For healthcare SaaS: strong emphasis on PHI protections, access, encryption, logging, incident response, and vendor/HIPAA mapping (e.g., SOC 2 + HIPAA bridge).⁹⁸⁹⁷

SOC 2 process (Type II, the one you care about)

Define scope: systems (e.g., GKE‑hosted API, agentic workflow services, Vertex AI integrations), locations, trust criteria (Security + Availability + Confidentiality + Privacy for PHI).⁹⁸¹⁰⁴
Map controls: design controls to meet TSC, often reusing ISO 27001/HIPAA safeguards.⁹⁷⁹⁸
Readiness: gap analysis, remediation, documentation and evidence baselines.¹⁰⁴⁹⁸
Observation period: typically 6–12 months where controls operate consistently.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴
Examination: external auditor tests design + operating effectiveness; report includes system description, management assertion, controls, and test results.¹⁰³¹⁰⁴

You can align the matrix rows and evidence directly with SOC 2 TSC categories so one artifact set supports ISO 27001/42001, HIPAA, and SOC 2.

2. Template: populating matrix with Annex A controls

Use this pattern to add explicit control IDs:

Theme: free‑text grouping (e.g., “Access management”).
Control objective: 1–2 lines.
Annex A / TSC refs: explicit controls.
Implementation: stack‑specific detail.
Evidence: concrete artifacts.

Example template row (as columns):

Theme
Control objective
Annex A / SOC 2 ref
Healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation
Example evidence

You then fill Annex A / SOC 2 ref like:

Access management row: ISO 27001 A.5.15, A.5.16, A.5.18; SOC 2 CC6.1–CC6.8.¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁶¹⁰⁰¹⁰³
AI risk assessment row: ISO 42001 Annex A (risk & impact controls, e.g., A.6.x); ISO 27001 A.5.4; SOC 2 CC3.x.¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁵

Use public Annex A summaries and 42001 control lists as your reference when populating that column.¹⁰⁸¹⁰⁹¹¹⁰¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁷

3. Customizing the matrix for HIPAA in healthcare AI

HIPAA becomes an extra mapping layer on each row.⁹⁹¹¹¹⁹⁷

Add a “HIPAA ref” column and map matrix rows to:
- Admin safeguards (45 CFR 164.308) – risk analysis, workforce training, incident procedures.
- Physical safeguards (164.310) – facility and device protections (less AI‑specific).
- Technical safeguards (164.312) – access controls, audit controls, integrity, authentication, transmission security.
Examples:
- Access management row maps to 164.312(a) (Unique user ID, access control) and 164.308(a)(4) (Information access management).
- Logging & monitoring row maps to 164.312(b) (Audit controls).
- Data governance row maps to 164.308(a)(1) (risk management) and 164.312(c) (Integrity controls).

For AI‑specific rows (e.g., bias, impact assessments), note “no direct HIPAA clause; supports privacy by design / covered entity risk management” and cross‑link to your internal HIPAA risk process.¹¹¹⁹⁹

4. Example filled matrix row: AI risk assessment control

One concrete row you can drop in as‑is and adapt.

Column	Example content
Theme	AI risk assessment & treatment
Control objective	Identify, assess, and treat AI‑specific risks (clinical, ethical, operational, privacy) per system and tenant before and during deployment.
Annex A / SOC 2 / HIPAA ref	ISO 42001 Annex A – Risk & impact assessment controls (e.g., A.6.x); ISO 27001 A.5.4 (Information security risk management); SOC 2 CC3.x (Risk assessment); HIPAA 164.308(a)(1) (Risk analysis & management).¹⁰⁵¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸¹⁰³¹¹¹
Healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation	Establish a standardized AI Risk & Clinical Impact Assessment (AIRCIA) procedure for all AI systems. For each system: identify clinical use, affected workflows, data (PHI categories), tenants, and AI‑specific risks (unsafe outputs, bias, explainability limits, cross‑tenant leakage). Rate likelihood/impact using clinical and regulatory criteria; define risk treatments (design limitations, technical controls, monitoring, or rejection). Integrate AIRCIA as a gate in change management for any new model, prompt library, or high‑risk agent workflow, with re‑assessment triggers (model changes, new datasets, new tenant use cases).
Example evidence	AIRCIA procedure document; completed AIRCIA forms for “Clinical Note Assistant” and “Triage Agent”; risk register entries linked to these assessments; change tickets for AI features showing attached AIRCIA; meeting minutes from AI governance/clinical committee approving residual risks and go‑live.

5. Checklist to validate matrix evidence for ISO 42001 audit

Use this as a quick pre‑audit review for each row.¹¹²¹⁰⁵⁹⁹¹⁰⁷¹⁰⁸

For each control row, verify:

Documented control
- Written policy/SOP or design spec exists and is version‑controlled.
- The description in the matrix matches the actual procedure/document.
Implemented in practice
- At least one recent, real example (ticket, log, record) shows the control operating as described.
- For periodic activities (reviews, audits), at least two instances in the audit period.
Coverage and scope
- Control covers all in‑scope systems/tenants (or explicitly notes scoped‑out areas).
- AI‑specific aspects (clinical risk, bias, PHI) are clearly addressed where expected (e.g., risk assessment, monitoring).
Traceability to standards
- Annex A / SOC 2 / HIPAA references are correct and consistent.
- Evidence artifacts can be traced to specific clauses/criteria the auditor will test.
Ownership and monitoring
- A named owner is assigned; responsibilities appear in RACI or governance docs.
- Metrics or KPIs exist where reasonable (e.g., % AI systems with completed AIRCIA, number of AI incidents, training completion).
Continuous improvement
- Where incidents or findings exist, CAPA or improvement actions are recorded and linked back to the control.

You can turn this into a Confluence checklist macro or a “review status” column (Green/Amber/Red) per row.

6. Confluence macro pattern to render/filter the matrix

Assuming Confluence Cloud, simplest is an in‑page table + Page Properties, then use Page Properties Report or built‑in table filtering.

Option A – Single page with filters

Use the Table Filter and Charts for Confluence app (if installed) or native table filters.
Structure: one big table as we’ve drafted; put it inside a “Table Filter” macro to allow filtering by Theme, Annex A ref, Owner, Status.

Example structure (macro nesting in Confluence notation, not literal code):

{table-filter}
- your matrix table
{table-filter} end

Configure filters:

Add dropdown filters on columns: Theme, Annex A ref, Owner, Status.
Add text filter on Control objective.

Option B – Multi‑page + Page Properties

For per‑system or per‑tenant matrices:

On each system page, wrap a small matrix table in a Page Properties macro; ensure column headers are identical (“Theme, Control objective, …”).
On a central “Control Register” page, use Page Properties Report filtered by label (e.g., label = ai-system-matrix) to aggregate rows.

That gives you a global view you can filter by page (system) and Theme.

To keep this concise, here is how you’d tune the “implementation” and “evidence” cells in general; if you want, next round we can walk row‑by‑row:

Access management (GKE, Vertex, BigQuery)
- Implementation: GCP IAM roles (roles/container.admin, custom minimal roles for AI gateways), per‑project/per‑folder separation for tenants or environments; VPC‑SC where applicable; service accounts per microservice.
- Evidence: gcloud iam roles list exports; Terraform modules for IAM bindings; GKE RBAC manifests; BigQuery dataset ACLs.
Logging & monitoring
- Implementation: Cloud Logging sinks for AI gateway, GKE workloads, Vertex endpoints; structured logging for prompts/outputs (without over‑logging PHI); Cloud Monitoring dashboards; Alerting policies (e.g., spike in blocked prompts, 5xx rates).
- Evidence: log‑based metrics; sample log entries; alert definitions; screenshots/exports of Monitoring dashboards.
Data governance
- Implementation: BigQuery datasets per tenant; separate vector collections; Vertex Feature Store or other stores with data classification labels; DLP scans on key tables via Cloud DLP.
- Evidence: data catalog entries; DLP scan reports; SQL ACL screenshots.
Vendor security (LLM providers)
- Implementation: Private routing to external LLMs where possible; IP allowlists; encryption; per‑provider Terraform modules with endpoints and token handling; configuration flags to disable training/retention at provider.
- Evidence: Terraform module snippets; provider console screenshots showing data‑use settings; DPAs/BAAs.

If you want a concrete row expansion (e.g., “Logging & monitoring” line with exact GCP resources and some Terraform examples), I can generate that next. ¹¹³¹¹⁴¹¹⁵

⁂

WHAT other regulation and compliance frameworks should we be including in this matrix?

For a healthcare, multi‑tenant, agentic AI SaaS, your matrix should explicitly cover at least:

Data protection & privacy regulations.
- GDPR (if you touch EU data): lawful basis, DPIA, data subject rights, cross‑border transfers, DPA/ SCCs, records of processing.¹¹⁶
- CCPA/CPRA and similar (US state privacy): rights handling, “sale/share” analysis, opt‑out mechanisms, notices.¹¹⁶
Healthcare‑specific US frameworks.
- HIPAA (Privacy, Security, Breach Notification Rules) – you already have this on your radar; map Security Rule safeguards into matrix rows (access, audit, integrity, transmission security, risk analysis).¹¹⁷¹¹⁸
- HITRUST CSF as an umbrella: widely used by US healthcare SaaS to demonstrate harmonized compliance with HIPAA, ISO 27001, NIST CSF, etc., via a single certifiable control set.¹¹⁸
AI‑specific public frameworks and laws.
- EU AI Act (high‑risk AI): risk management system, data governance, logging, transparency, human oversight, robustness/accuracy, QMS, post‑market monitoring, conformity assessment.¹¹⁹¹²⁰
- NIST AI RMF (Govern–Map–Measure–Manage): voluntary, but a strong lens for AI risk governance, especially in US healthcare; easy to align with ISO 42001.¹²¹¹²²¹²³
- OECD AI Principles / high‑level AI ethics codes: can be mapped to existing rows for transparency, fairness, accountability, robustness.¹²²¹²⁴
Security foundations beyond ISO 27001.
- NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF): Identify–Protect–Detect–Respond–Recover; helpful to cross‑reference in rows for logging, incident response, BC/DR.¹²³
- PCI DSS (if you process card payments directly): narrow scope, but still common in SaaS; can be kept in a separate, payment‑specific section of the matrix.¹¹⁶
Medical device / clinical AI safety where applicable.
- FDA AI/ML SaMD guidance (and analogous EU/UK device rules) if any of your AI workflows are close to diagnostic/therapeutic decisions or integrated into devices; aligns with your V&V, post‑market surveillance, and clinical impact‑assessment rows.¹²⁵¹²²
General SaaS compliance “table stakes”.
- SOC 1/SOC 2 (you already include): map Trust Services Criteria into existing security, availability, confidentiality, privacy rows so evidence is reused.¹²⁶¹²⁷
- Local health/IT regulations where you deploy (e.g., state‑level health data laws, national e‑health rules); these can be linked at a row level under “Regulatory mapping”.¹²⁵¹¹⁷

A minimal but robust extension of your matrix would therefore add mapping columns for:

GDPR/DP law ref
EU AI Act article / high‑risk requirement
NIST AI RMF function (G/M/M/M)
HITRUST / HIPAA ref

This lets you keep a single control row (e.g., “AI risk assessment & treatment”) and show its coverage across ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, HIPAA/HITRUST, GDPR, NIST AI RMF, and EU AI Act, rather than duplicating controls per framework.¹²⁰¹²²¹¹⁶ ¹²⁸¹²⁹¹³⁰¹³¹¹³²

⁂

Data protection & privacy regulations.

GDPR (if you touch EU data): lawful basis, DPIA, data subject rights, cross‑border transfers, DPA/ SCCs, records of processing. CCPA/CPRA and similar (US state privacy): rights handling, “sale/share” analysis, opt‑out mechanisms, notices. Healthcare‑specific US frameworks. HIPAA (Privacy, Security, Breach Notification Rules) – you already have this on your radar; map Security Rule safeguards into matrix rows (access, audit, integrity, transmission security, risk analysis). HITRUST CSF as an umbrella: widely used by US healthcare SaaS to demonstrate harmonized compliance with HIPAA, ISO 27001, NIST CSF, etc., via a single certifiable control set. AI‑specific public frameworks and laws. EU AI Act (high‑risk AI): risk management system, data governance, logging, transparency, human oversight, robustness/accuracy, QMS, post‑market monitoring, conformity assessment. NIST AI RMF (Govern–Map–Measure–Manage): voluntary, but a strong lens for AI risk governance, especially in US healthcare; easy to align with ISO 42001. OECD AI Principles / high‑level AI ethics codes: can be mapped to existing rows for transparency, fairness, accountability, robustness. Security foundations beyond ISO 27001. NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF): Identify–Protect–Detect–Respond–Recover; helpful to cross‑reference in rows for logging, incident response, BC/DR. PCI DSS (if you process card payments directly): narrow scope, but still common in SaaS; can be kept in a separate, payment‑specific section of the matrix. Medical device / clinical AI safety where applicable. FDA AI/ML SaMD guidance (and analogous EU/UK device rules) if any of your AI workflows are close to diagnostic/therapeutic decisions or integrated into devices; aligns with your V&V, post‑market surveillance, and clinical impact‑assessment rows. General SaaS compliance “table stakes”. SOC 1/SOC 2 (you already include): map Trust Services Criteria into existing security, availability, confidentiality, privacy rows so evidence is reused. Local health/IT regulations where you deploy (e.g., state‑level health data laws, national e‑health rules); these can be linked at a row level under “Regulatory mapping”. A minimal but robust extension of your matrix would therefore add mapping columns for: GDPR/DP law ref EU AI Act article / high‑risk requirement NIST AI RMF function (G/M/M/M) HITRUST / HIPAA ref This lets you keep a single control row (e.g., “AI risk assessment & treatment”) and show its coverage across ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, HIPAA/HITRUST, GDPR, NIST AI RMF, and EU AI Act, rather than duplicating controls per framework. Follow-ups How to map NIST AI RMF controls to ISO 42001 Key differences between EU AI Act and NIST AI RMF HIPAA requirements for AI systems in healthcare Include HITRUST CSF in the compliance matrix How does EU AI Act classify healthcare AI risks

You should extend the matrix with a small number of additional columns and a few new rows, not a whole new set of controls. Below is how to handle each follow‑up concisely.

1. Mapping NIST AI RMF to ISO 42001 (for the matrix)

NIST AI RMF functions map quite cleanly onto ISO 42001 clauses and Annex A themes, and NIST/NIST‑aligned crosswalks already exist.¹³³¹³⁴¹³⁵¹³⁶¹³⁷

Practical approach:

Add a “NIST AI RMF function” column to each row with values: Govern (G), Map (M1), Measure (M2), Manage (M3).¹³⁶¹³⁸
Use available crosswalks (e.g., “NIST AI RMF to ISO/IEC 42001” PDF) as your baseline mapping.¹³⁴¹³⁵¹³³

Examples for existing rows:

AI governance & leadership → NIST: GOVERN (all subcategories).¹³⁵¹³⁷¹³⁶
AI risk assessment & treatment → MAP + MANAGE (identifying context, risks, and treatments).¹³⁷¹³⁹¹³⁶
Bias & fairness management → MEASURE + MANAGE (metrics and mitigation).¹³⁶¹³⁷
Deployment, monitoring & AI ops → MANAGE + MEASURE (ongoing monitoring, adaptation).¹³⁹¹³⁶

When you add a new row, just tag it with the relevant function(s); you don’t need to restate NIST language in the objective.

2. Key differences: EU AI Act vs NIST AI RMF (for matrix design)

Use these differences to decide how to reference each framework.¹⁴⁰¹⁴¹¹⁴²¹⁴³

Legal status:
- EU AI Act: binding EU regulation with fines and conformity assessment obligations.¹⁴¹¹⁴²
- NIST AI RMF: non‑binding guidance, widely recommended but voluntary.¹⁴²¹⁴⁰¹³⁶
Primary focus:
- EU AI Act: requirements on AI systems, especially high‑risk systems (risk management, data governance, technical documentation, logging, transparency, human oversight, accuracy/robustness, QMS, post‑market monitoring, CE marking).¹⁴¹
- NIST AI RMF: risk management process across the AI lifecycle and organization (govern, map, measure, manage).¹⁴²¹³⁹¹³⁶
How to reflect it in the matrix:
- Add an “EU AI Act article / requirement” column for rows that implement high‑risk obligations (e.g., Risk management → Art 9; Data governance → Art 10; Logging → Art 12; Transparency → Art 13; Human oversight → Art 14; Accuracy/robustness → Art 15; QMS → Art 17; Post‑market monitoring → Art 72; Serious incidents → Art 73).¹⁴¹
- Add NIST AI RMF function as described above; you don’t need article‑level detail for NIST.

3. HIPAA requirements for AI systems (how to reflect in the matrix)

HIPAA does not mention “AI”, but your AI use still must comply with Privacy, Security, and Breach Notification Rules.¹⁴⁴¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁶

Main Security Rule themes to map:

Access control – unique user IDs, role‑based access, emergency access procedures, automatic logoff, encryption where reasonable (164.312(a)).
Audit controls – mechanisms to record and examine access and activity (164.312(b)).
Integrity – mechanisms to protect PHI from improper alteration/destruction (164.312(c)).
Person/entity authentication – verify who is accessing PHI (164.312(d)).
Transmission security – protect PHI in transit (164.312(e)).

For AI‑specific aspects, emphasize:

Clear policy identifying which AI systems can access PHI and what categories are required.¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁴
Data minimization and justification when full medical charts are used as context.¹⁴⁴
Technical controls limiting PHI flow into prompts, models, logs, and training; redaction where feasible.¹⁴⁵¹⁴⁴

In the matrix, add “HIPAA/HITRUST ref” and, for each relevant row, map to Security Rule citations and/or HITRUST CSF requirement IDs.¹⁴⁷¹⁴⁶

4. Including HITRUST CSF in the matrix

HITRUST CSF already harmonizes HIPAA, ISO 27001, NIST, and other requirements.¹⁴⁷

How to use it without duplicating everything:

Add a “HITRUST CSF domain/requirement” column.
For each row, map to the most relevant HITRUST requirement(s) using CSF comparison guidance or your assessor’s crosswalk.¹⁴⁸¹⁴⁷
Use HITRUST’s existing mappings to ISO 27001 and NIST SP 800‑53 so you don’t have to manually derive those again.¹⁴⁷

This lets one AI control (e.g., “Logging & monitoring for AI”) simultaneously demonstrate coverage for ISO 27001, SOC 2, HIPAA, HITRUST, and NIST CSF.

5. How EU AI Act classifies healthcare AI risks (what to mark as “high‑risk”)

Healthcare AI is often “high‑risk” under the Act.¹⁴⁹¹⁴¹

Key points:

High‑risk via medical device / IVD route:
- AI that is a safety component of a medical device or IVD, or is itself a device, and requires notified‑body conformity under MDR/IVDR → automatically high‑risk, plus AI Act requirements.¹⁴⁹¹⁴¹
High‑risk use cases listed in Annex III:
- Certain healthcare‑related Annex III use cases (e.g., emergency‑triage systems, some emotion‑recognition applications in healthcare) are explicitly high‑risk.¹⁴⁹¹⁴¹
Not everything in healthcare is high‑risk:
- “Narrow procedural” or supportive tasks that do not replace human assessment (e.g., text structuring, coding assistance) may fall outside high‑risk if they only prepare or improve human work and do not independently influence clinical decisions.¹⁴¹
Matrix impact:
- Add a “EU AI Act risk class” column per AI system row (e.g., High‑risk via MDR Art 6(1); High‑risk via Annex III; Non‑high‑risk).
- For high‑risk systems, ensure rows cover all relevant Art 9–15/17/72–73 requirements, and use the “EU AI Act article” column to show which requirement each control supports.¹⁴¹

If you want next, I can:

Provide a compact crosswalk snippet (e.g., 5–8 key rows) showing “AI risk assessment & treatment” and “Data governance” with ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, HIPAA, and HITRUST columns filled, ready to paste into your matrix. ¹⁵⁰¹⁵¹¹⁵²¹⁵³

⁂

Provide a compact crosswalk snippet (e.g., 5–8 key rows) showing “AI risk assessment & treatment” and “Data governance” with ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, HIPAA, and HITRUST columns filled, ready to paste into your matrix.

How does GDPR intersect with EU AI Act for high-risk AI systems Mapping GDPR data protection to ISO 42001 AIMS requirements HIPAA compliance requirements for AI handling PHI in healthcare CPRA updates and differences from original CCPA Compare GDPR lawful basis with CCPA consumer consent mechanisms

Below is a compact, paste‑ready crosswalk plus concise answers to your follow‑ups.

1. Compact crosswalk snippet (5 key rows)

You can paste this into your matrix and extend. Columns tuned for: ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act, GDPR, HIPAA, HITRUST.¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁷¹⁵⁸¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁰¹⁶¹

Theme	Control objective	ISO 42001 (clause / Annex A)	NIST AI RMF func.	EU AI Act ref (high‑risk)	GDPR ref	HIPAA / HITRUST ref	Notes (how this row is used)
AI risk assessment & treatment	Identify, assess, and treat AI‑specific risks (incl. clinical, ethical, privacy, security) for each AI system and tenant before and during deployment.	Clauses on risk mgmt; Annex A risk & impact assessment controls (e.g., A.6.x – AI risk and impact assessments, treatment plans).¹⁶²¹⁶³	G (govern risk policy), M (map context and risks), Ma (manage risks); per NIST AI RMF→42001 crosswalk.¹⁶⁴¹⁵⁷¹⁶⁵	Art 9 (risk mgmt system), Art 29(4)–(5) deployer obligations, Art 72–73 (post‑market monitoring, serious incident reporting).¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁵	Art 5(1)(a),(b) (lawfulness, fairness), Art 24 (accountability), Art 25 (privacy by design), Art 32 (security), Art 35 (DPIA for high‑risk processing).¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁶	HIPAA 164.308(a)(1) (risk analysis & mgmt); HITRUST CSF risk mgmt domains (e.g., 0.x / 02.x mapping to ISO 27001/NIST).¹⁶⁰¹⁶¹	One master row for your AIRCIA / AI risk & clinical impact assessment process; cross‑referenced by system‑specific rows.
Data governance & data protection (AI)	Ensure AI training/inference data, including PHI and personal data, is accurate, appropriate, and processed with privacy‑by‑design across tenants.	Annex A data governance controls (AI data quality, provenance, minimization, retention).¹⁶²¹⁶⁶	G (govern data principles), M (map data and context), Me (measure data quality/risks).¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁷	Art 10 (data & data governance), Art 12 (logging) for high‑risk; Annex III classification where health‑related.¹⁵⁹¹⁶⁸	Art 5(1)(c),(e) (data minimization, storage limitation), Art 6 (lawful basis), Art 9 (special category data), Art 30 (records of processing), Art 35 (DPIA).¹⁶⁹¹⁵⁶	HIPAA 164.308(a)(1) (risk mgmt), 164.312(c) (integrity), 164.306 (general safeguards); HITRUST CSF data protection controls.¹⁷⁰¹⁶¹	This row covers PHI/PII classification, tenant isolation, lineage, retention, use of PHI in training, and de‑identification.
Transparency & documentation	Provide clear documentation of AI systems, data, and behavior; enable explainability and auditability for clinicians, regulators, and data subjects.	Clauses on transparency; Annex A controls for AI documentation, model cards, user information.¹⁶⁶¹⁶²	G (govern roles & policies), M (map system and stakeholders), Me (measure and document limits, performance).¹⁶⁴¹⁶⁷	Art 13 (transparency), Art 14 (instructions for use), Art 23–24 (information to deployers and users).¹⁵⁹	Arts 12–14 (transparent information to data subjects), Art 15 (access), Art 30 (records), Art 34 (breach communications).¹⁶⁹¹⁵⁶	HIPAA 164.520 (notice of privacy practices); HITRUST transparency/notice requirements mapped from HIPAA/GDPR.¹⁷⁰¹⁶¹	Use for model cards, tenant‑facing AI docs, data‑use notices, and logs/records supporting audits and data‑subject responses.
Human oversight & accountability	Ensure humans remain accountable for clinical decisions; define oversight mechanisms and escalation paths for AI outputs.	Annex A controls for human oversight, accountability, allocation of responsibilities.¹⁶⁶¹⁶²	G (govern roles), M (map human‑AI workflows), Ma (manage actions when issues arise).¹⁶⁴¹⁷¹	Art 14 (human oversight requirements), Art 9(4) (risk mgmt incorporating oversight measures).¹⁵⁹	Recitals + Art 5(1)(a) (fairness), Art 22 (automated decisions w/ legal/similar effects) where applicable.¹⁶⁹	HIPAA 164.308(a)(3),(5) (workforce security, training) where oversight relates to how staff use AI; HITRUST workforce/oversight controls.¹⁷²¹⁶¹	Row for clinical review, override, escalation, training; cross‑links to clinical governance and safety committees.
Logging, monitoring & incidents (AI)	Log AI system behavior and access; monitor safety, bias, and security; manage AI incidents and CAPA.	Annex A controls for logging, monitoring, AI incident mgmt, post‑incident improvement.¹⁶⁶¹⁶²	Me (measure – monitoring, metrics), Ma (manage – incident response, remediation).¹⁶⁴¹⁷¹	Art 12 (logging), Art 17 (QMS, incident mgmt), Art 72–73 (post‑market monitoring, serious incident reporting).¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁵	Art 30 (records), Art 32 (security), Art 33–34 (breach notification), Art 35 (risks assessed via DPIA).¹⁶⁹¹⁵⁵	HIPAA 164.312(b) (audit controls), 164.308(a)(6) (security incident procedures), 164.404–410 (breach notification); HITRUST logging/incident domains.¹⁷⁰¹⁶⁰¹⁶¹	Row for AI‑specific logs (prompts/outputs metadata), safety/bias metrics, incident taxonomy, RCAs, and CAPA.

You can add more rows (e.g., “Bias & fairness”, “Model lifecycle & V&V”) with the same columns using these references.

Different scopes, overlapping systems.
- GDPR regulates personal data processing and data subject rights.¹⁶⁹
- EU AI Act regulates AI systems, especially high‑risk ones, regardless of whether they process personal data; when they do, both laws apply simultaneously.¹⁷³¹⁷⁴¹⁵⁹
DPIAs and AI risk management.
- GDPR Art 35 requires a DPIA for high‑risk personal‑data processing (e.g., large‑scale processing of sensitive data, profiling).¹⁵⁵
- AI Act requires a risk management system for high‑risk AI (Art 9) and, for deployers, a DPIA under Art 26 when high‑risk AI processes personal data.¹⁵⁹¹⁵⁵
- In practice, you run a combined DPIA + AI risk/impact assessment aligned to both.¹⁵⁶¹⁵⁵
Complementary principles.
- Both emphasize transparency, accountability, and risk‑based controls.¹⁷⁵¹⁶⁹¹⁵⁶
- GDPR focuses on lawful basis, minimization, rights; AI Act adds technical and lifecycle requirements (logging, human oversight, robustness, QMS).¹⁶⁹¹⁷⁵¹⁵⁹

ISO 42001 can be used to operationalize GDPR duties for AI.¹⁶³¹⁵⁴¹⁵⁶

Key mappings:

Accountability (Art 5(2), 24) → AIMS governance: roles, policies, documented processes, and evidence.¹⁵⁶¹⁶³¹⁶⁹
Data protection by design/default (Art 25) → AIMS design & development controls, data minimization in prompts, privacy‑preserving training pipelines.¹⁶³¹⁵⁶
DPIA (Art 35) → AI risk & impact assessments (Annex A risk controls), often combined into one AI‑specific DPIA process.¹⁵⁵¹⁵⁶
Data subject rights (Arts 12–22) → AIMS transparency, documentation, and data governance; you must design AI data flows and logs so rights can be exercised (access, rectification, deletion, objection).¹⁵⁴¹⁶⁹¹⁵⁶
Security of processing (Art 32) → AIMS link to ISMS (ISO 27001) for access control, logging, encryption; AI‑specific security controls (e.g., prompt‑injection defenses).¹⁵⁴¹⁶³

In your matrix, add a “GDPR ref” column and assign the relevant articles to each row as in the snippet.

4. HIPAA compliance for AI handling PHI

HIPAA obligations apply regardless of whether the system is “AI”; you must ensure AI components respect the same safeguards.¹⁶⁰¹⁷⁰¹⁷²

For AI in healthcare SaaS:

Security Rule (core for your matrix):
- Risk analysis & management: assess AI components as part of the risk analysis, including PHI in prompts, logs, and model outputs.¹⁷²¹⁶⁰
- Access control & authentication: RBAC for AI pipelines, PHI‑scoped access, strong auth for admins and AI config changes.¹⁶⁰
- Audit controls: log access to PHI and AI requests/outputs, including tenant and user IDs.¹⁶⁰
- Integrity & transmission: ensure PHI isn’t altered improperly by AI workflows; encrypt PHI in transit and at rest, including AI‑specific stores.¹⁷⁰¹⁶⁰
Privacy Rule:
- Limit PHI use/disclosure to permitted purposes; avoid using PHI for training beyond covered functions without proper authorization and de‑identification.¹⁷⁰¹⁷²
- Update Notices of Privacy Practices to cover AI use where material.¹⁷²
Breach Notification Rule:
- Treat AI‑driven leakage (e.g., logs, mis‑routed outputs, prompt‑injection exfiltration) as potential breaches, with the usual assessment and notification flows.¹⁶⁰

Your matrix should show HIPAA/HITRUST references on rows for access, logging, data governance, risk management, incident response, and training.

5. CPRA updates vs original CCPA (short for your matrix)

CPRA (California Privacy Rights Act) amends and extends CCPA.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷¹⁷⁸

Key differences relevant to your control matrix:

New rights and concepts.
- Expands “personal information” concepts and introduces “sensitive personal information” (health, precise location, etc.).¹⁷⁶
- New rights: correct information, limit use of sensitive personal information.¹⁷⁷¹⁷⁶
“Sharing” and targeted advertising.
- Regulates not just “sale” but also “sharing” (e.g., cross‑context behavioral advertising), adding “Do Not Share My Personal Information” mechanisms.¹⁷⁶
Consent model changes.
- Still primarily opt‑out, but CPRA introduces more explicit consent requirements for some uses and aligns consent definition closer to GDPR (freely given, specific, informed, unambiguous).¹⁷⁷
Enforcement and governance.
- Creates the California Privacy Protection Agency and clarifies obligations around risk assessments and cybersecurity audits for some high‑risk processing.¹⁵⁴¹⁷⁶

In the matrix, rows related to privacy notices, consent/opt‑out, data‑sale/sharing analysis, and DPIA‑like assessments should get “CCPA/CPRA” references.

GDPR lawful basis.
- You must have one of several lawful bases (consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, legitimate interests) for each processing purpose.¹⁶⁹
- Consent is one basis; when used, it must be explicit, specific, informed, and withdrawable.¹⁷⁷
CCPA/CPRA model.
- Primarily an opt‑out regime: business can collect/process data by default but must provide opt‑out for “sale” (and now “sharing”) and certain sensitive‑data uses.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷
- CPRA moves closer to GDPR’s consent standard in some contexts but does not require lawful‑basis analysis in the GDPR sense.¹⁷⁷
Implications for your controls.
- For EU users, your matrix must include: lawful‑basis mapping per purpose, consent capture and logging where used, and purpose limitation controls.
- For CA users, focus rows on: opt‑out/“Do Not Sell or Share” flows, “Limit use of my sensitive personal information” controls, and updated notices.¹⁷⁶¹⁷⁷

If you’d like, next iteration I can extend the crosswalk snippet with two more rows (“Bias & fairness management” and “Model lifecycle & V&V”) so you have a complete 7–8 row starter set for the matrix. ¹⁷⁹¹⁸⁰¹⁸¹

⁂

extend the crosswalk snippet with two more rows (“Bias & fairness management” and “Model lifecycle & V &V”) so you have a complete 7–8 row starter set for the matrix.

Follow-ups Expand matrix to include GDPR and ISO 27001 columns Provide full crosswalk for all AI risk categories in EU AI Act How to implement AI risk treatment from this crosswalk in healthcare Add NIST AI RMF 2.0 updates to the matrix Sample checklist for HITRUST AI governance audit using these mappings

Here’s the extended crosswalk snippet plus concise answers to your follow‑ups, kept in a form you can paste straight into your control register.

1. Extended crosswalk (add 2 rows: Bias & fairness, Model lifecycle & V &V)

This assumes the earlier 5 rows; below are two new rows plus one more (optional) so you have 7–8 starters.¹⁸²¹⁸³¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁵¹⁸⁶¹⁸⁷¹⁸⁸¹⁸⁹¹⁹⁰

Columns: Theme | Control objective | ISO 42001 | NIST AI RMF | EU AI Act | GDPR | HIPAA / HITRUST | Notes

| Theme | Control objective | ISO 42001 (clause / Annex A) | NIST AI RMF func. | EU AI Act ref (high‑risk) | GDPR ref | HIPAA / HITRUST ref | Notes |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| Bias & fairness management | Identify, monitor, and mitigate harmful bias in AI models and workflows, especially where they impact patient care or access to services. | Annex A bias & fairness / impact controls under data governance and risk mgmt (e.g., A.6.x, A.7.x – data quality, bias detection, mitigation).[web:68][web:51][web:137] | G (govern fairness principles), M (map affected populations and use cases), Me (measure bias metrics), Ma (manage mitigation actions).[web:87][web:89][web:135] | Art 10 (data & data governance, including bias detection), Art 9 (risk mgmt incorporating fairness), Annex III use cases where discriminatory outcomes are a key risk.[web:134][web:118][web:135] | Art 5(1)(a) (fairness), Art 9 (special category data), Art 24–25 (accountability, privacy by design – including fairness‑by‑design considerations).[web:119][web:124] | HIPAA: primarily via non‑discrimination and quality/risk mgmt duties of covered entities; HITRUST CSF fairness/equity not explicit but mapped via risk & quality mgmt controls.[web:108][web:113] | Row covers dataset audits, subgroup performance evaluation, fairness metrics, and governance around bias remediation in healthcare triage, diagnosis support, and resource allocation. |
| Model lifecycle & V&V (verification & validation) | Ensure AI models and agentic workflows are specified, implemented, tested, and validated (incl. clinical validation) before and during production use. | Clauses on AI lifecycle, model development, testing, and validation; Annex A controls for design, verification, validation, and change control (e.g., A.7.x, A.8.x).[web:51][web:131][web:130] | G (govern lifecycle policies), M (map system and context), Me (measure performance and risks via testing), Ma (manage deployment decisions and re‑validation).[web:87][web:95][web:135] | Art 9 (risk mgmt including testing), Art 15 (accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity), Art 17 (QMS and lifecycle processes), Art 72 (post‑market monitoring).[web:111][web:135] | Art 25 (privacy by design – including in development/testing), Art 32 (security testing), Art 35 (DPIA considering model risks and mitigations).[web:119][web:124] | HIPAA 164.306 (general safeguards), 164.308(a)(1) (risk management) as applied to new systems; HITRUST CSF controls for SDLC, testing, and change mgmt mapped to ISO 27001/NIST.[web:96][web:113] | Row covers technical verification (unit/integration tests, robustness tests, prompt‑injection tests) and clinical validation (retrospective/prospective studies, usability tests) for healthcare AI. |
| Human oversight & accountability *(optional if not already present)* | Ensure humans remain accountable for clinical decisions; define oversight mechanisms and escalation paths for AI outputs. | Annex A controls for human oversight and assignment of responsibilities (e.g., governance & accountability areas).[web:68][web:51] | G (govern roles), M (map human‑AI workflows), Ma (manage responses and overrides).[web:87][web:95] | Art 14 (human oversight), Art 9 (risk mgmt including oversight measures).[web:111][web:140] | Art 5(1)(a) (fairness), Art 22 (automated decisions) where applicable.[web:119][web:123] | HIPAA workforce security/training 164.308(a)(3),(5) when oversight affects how staff use AI; HITRUST workforce/oversight controls.[web:112][web:113] | Row for clinical review, override, escalation, training; ties to clinical governance and safety committees and to SOC 2 “control environment” controls. |

You already have GDPR references in cells; to make it more usable:

Add two explicit columns:
- ISO 27001 Annex A ref – e.g., A.5.4 Risk mgmt, A.5.15 Access control, A.8.x Operations security, etc.¹⁹¹¹⁹²¹⁹³¹⁹⁴
- GDPR ref – as in the snippet (Art 5, 6, 9, 24, 25, 30, 32, 35, etc.).¹⁹⁵¹⁹⁶
For each row, fill ISO 27001 column using Annex A summaries; e.g.:
- AI risk assessment row: A.5.4 (Information security risk management) plus any others you reuse.¹⁹²¹⁹¹
- Data governance row: A.5.12 (Classification), A.5.13 (Labeling), A.5.14 (Handling of information), etc.¹⁹³¹⁹¹¹⁹²

This lets ISO 27001 auditors see their anchors without you duplicating controls.

3. Full crosswalk for AI risk categories under EU AI Act (how to plug into matrix)

For matrix purposes you don’t need every detail, but you do need to tag each AI system/row by risk class and required obligations.¹⁸³¹⁸⁴¹⁹⁷¹⁹⁸

EU AI Act risk categories (regulatory view):
- Unacceptable risk – prohibited (e.g., social scoring, certain real‑time biometric ID).¹⁹⁷¹⁸³
- High risk – Annex III use cases or components of regulated products (including many healthcare / clinical AI and SaMD).¹⁸⁴¹⁸³
- Limited/minimal/general‑purpose – transparency or minimal requirements; GPAI has its own obligations.¹⁹⁹¹⁹⁸¹⁸⁴
In your matrix:
- Add a “EU AI Act risk class” column at the system‑level (not necessarily per control row), with values like High – Annex III (health), GPAI, Non‑high risk.
- In the “EU AI Act ref” column of each control row, list the relevant articles (e.g., Art 9–10 for risk mgmt & data; Art 13–15 for transparency, oversight, robustness; Art 17, 72–73 for QMS & post‑market monitoring) as in the snippet.¹⁸⁸¹⁸²¹⁹⁷

That gives you a workable “full crosswalk” without exploding the matrix.

4. Implementing AI risk treatment in healthcare from this crosswalk

Use the crosswalk as a requirements table feeding your AI risk treatment workflow:

Risk identification & classification
- For each AI system, classify under EU AI Act (risk class), identify GDPR roles (controller/processor), assess HIPAA/HITRUST scope, and map NIST AI RMF function(s).²⁰⁰²⁰¹¹⁸⁴¹⁸⁸
Treatment options derived from rows
- For each risk (clinical safety, bias, privacy, security, misuse), link to one or more rows as the treatment package (e.g., bias mitigated via “Bias & fairness management” + “Logging & incidents”).
Control design and implementation
- Use “Implementation” cells (we built earlier) to specify concrete controls (e.g., subgroup performance tests, PHI minimization, oversight gates) and attach to the risk record.
Residual risk and acceptance
- After controls operate, re‑score risk; if high‑residual, escalates to clinical/AI governance for acceptance or design change.
Evidence & continuous improvement
- Ensure each risk has linked artifacts from relevant rows: risk assessment, test reports, incident logs, CAPA; this becomes your ISO 42001/SOC 2/HITRUST audit trail.¹⁸⁶¹⁹⁰²⁰²

In practice, you implement this in your GRC tool (or spreadsheets) where each risk object has links to matrix rows and evidence.

5. Adding NIST AI RMF 2.0 updates

NIST AI RMF 2.0 keeps the G‑M‑Me‑Ma structure but adds more detail around generative AI, systemic risks, and evaluation.²⁰³²⁰⁴²⁰⁵

For your matrix:

Keep the function column (G/M/Me/Ma) but optionally add a “NIST AI RMF 2.x note” column where relevant, e.g.:
- Bias & fairness row: mention expanded guidance on evaluation of generative models and subgroup performance.²⁰⁵²⁰³
- Model lifecycle & V&V row: reference 2.0 emphasis on GenAI evaluation, red‑teaming, and detection of synthetic content where relevant.²⁰³²⁰⁵

You don’t need to change the overall mapping; you just update notes to reflect 2.0’s stronger focus on GenAI, evaluations, and systemic risks.

6. Sample checklist for a HITRUST AI governance audit using these mappings

A HITRUST assessor will look at how your AI controls satisfy HITRUST CSF requirements that already map to HIPAA/ISO/NIST.¹⁹⁰²⁰⁶

Sample high‑level checklist (each line = question you can translate into control‑specific queries):

Governance and scope
- Is there a documented AIMS (or AI governance overlay) covering all AI systems handling PHI, mapped to HITRUST domains and requirements?
- Are roles and responsibilities for AI risk, privacy, and clinical oversight defined and communicated?
Risk management
- Are AI systems included in the enterprise risk management process (per HITRUST risk mgmt requirements) with documented AI risk assessments and treatments?
- Do risk assessments incorporate clinical safety, bias, privacy, and security dimensions?
Data protection and privacy
- Are PHI and other sensitive data used by AI properly classified, inventoried, and protected according to HITRUST/ HIPAA controls (access, integrity, transmission security)?
- Is there documented control over use of PHI in training, fine‑tuning, and logging?
Security controls (ISO 27001 / NIST alignment)
- Do AI components adhere to secure SDLC, access control, logging, and change management controls already required by HITRUST?
- Is vendor risk mgmt for AI providers integrated into the HITRUST‑aligned third‑party risk program?
Bias, fairness, and clinical safety
- Are there procedures to evaluate and mitigate bias aligned with HITRUST’s risk and quality mgmt concepts (even if not explicitly named), with evidence of testing and mitigation for at least key models?
- Are clinical validation and human‑oversight mechanisms in place and documented?
Monitoring, incidents, and continuous improvement
- Are AI incidents (safety, bias, privacy) integrated into the HITRUST‑aligned incident and CAPA processes?
- Do metrics and periodic reviews drive improvements to AI controls, with evidence of actions taken?

Tie each checklist item back to matrix rows + HITRUST IDs; that gives you a clean story for both HITRUST and ISO 42001 auditors.

If you’d like next, I can generate a single consolidated markdown table that merges: Theme, Control objective, ISO 27001 Annex A, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF (2.0), EU AI Act, GDPR, HIPAA/HITRUST in one layout, so you can adopt it as your canonical “AI control universe” page. ²⁰⁷²⁰⁸²⁰⁹²¹⁰

⁂

LIST the 30 most common regulatory frameworks in the US, Canada, Europe, UK, Australia, Brazil which we may encounter working with regualted industries in any of these countries create a list after deep research

Below is a pragmatic list of 30 commonly encountered regulatory / compliance frameworks across US, Canada, Europe/EU, UK, Australia, Brazil when working with regulated industries (healthcare, finance, SaaS, AI, data platforms). This is intentionally “control‑relevant stuff” you’d map into your matrix, not every niche law.²¹¹²¹²²¹³²¹⁴²¹⁵

Global / cross‑sector (applies in multiple regions)

ISO/IEC 27001 – Information Security Management System (ISMS) Widely used baseline for security risk management and controls in healthcare, finance, and SaaS.²¹³
ISO/IEC 42001 – Artificial Intelligence Management System (AIMS) AI governance and risk management standard, increasingly adopted by AI/ML and SaaS providers.²¹⁶²¹⁷
SOC 1 (ISAE 3402) Attestation over controls relevant to financial reporting (ICFR) for service organizations.²¹⁸²¹⁹
SOC 2 (AICPA Trust Services Criteria) Attestation over security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, privacy for SaaS / cloud services.²¹⁹²¹³
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) Identify–Protect–Detect–Respond–Recover; common reference for security programs in US and internationally.²¹³²¹⁹
NIST SP 800‑53 / FedRAMP baselines Control catalog heavily reused for healthcare, government contractors, and cloud providers, often mapped into HITRUST / ISO environments.²¹³
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF) Govern–Map–Measure–Manage; de‑facto AI risk reference in US and increasingly used globally.²¹⁷²²⁰²²¹

Data protection & privacy – major jurisdictions

EU GDPR – General Data Protection Regulation (EU/EEA) Core personal‑data framework in Europe; extraterritorial reach for services to EU residents.²¹⁵
UK GDPR + Data Protection Act 2018 (UK) Post‑Brexit UK variant of GDPR plus national implementing act.²¹²²¹⁵
CCPA / CPRA – California Consumer Privacy Act & Privacy Rights Act (US, CA residents) Baseline US state privacy regime; model for other US state privacy laws.²¹⁴²¹⁵
Other US state privacy laws (e.g., Virginia, Colorado, Connecticut, Utah, etc.) Often harmonized in practice; you’ll typically treat them collectively in a “US state privacy” row.²¹⁴²¹⁵
PIPEDA – Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act (Canada) Federal Canadian privacy law for private sector; supplemented by provincial laws.²¹¹²¹⁴
LGPD – Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados (Brazil) Brazil’s GDPR‑style data protection law, with national authority (ANPD) and strong rights/obligations.²¹²²¹⁵
Australian Privacy Act 1988 + Australian Privacy Principles (APPs) Core privacy law for Australian entities and some overseas processors.²¹⁵²¹²

AI‑specific and digital‑platform regulation

EU AI Act (Europe/EU, some extraterritorial reach) Risk‑based AI regulation (unacceptable, high‑risk, limited, minimal); strong obligations for high‑risk healthcare AI.²²²²²³²¹⁵
OECD AI Principles / high‑level AI ethics frameworks Non‑binding principles (fairness, transparency, accountability) often referenced in AI governance programs.²²⁴²²⁵
EU Digital Services Act (DSA) / Digital Markets Act (DMA) For platforms/online intermediaries and “gatekeepers”, with obligations on data, transparency, and content handling (less healthcare‑specific but relevant for platform‑type services).²¹⁵

Healthcare / life sciences – US, Canada, EU, UK, Australia, Brazil

HIPAA – Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (US) Privacy, Security, Breach Notification Rules for PHI; foundational for US healthcare SaaS.²²⁶²²⁷
HITECH Act (US) Strengthens HIPAA, breach notification, EHR incentives; relevant for enforcement posture and reporting.²²⁷²²⁶
FDA Medical Device & SaMD regulations incl. AI/ML guidance (US) For AI used as part of Software as a Medical Device; regulates clinical safety, effectiveness, and post‑market surveillance.²²⁸²²⁹
EU MDR / IVDR (Medical Device & In Vitro Diagnostic Regulations) with AI guidance (EU) Clinical device regime; many AI decision‑support systems fall under MDR/IVDR and are then “high‑risk” under EU AI Act.²²⁹²³⁰
UK MHRA medical device / SaMD rules including AI guidance (UK) Post‑Brexit device regulation environment for clinical AI products.²³¹²²⁸
Canada – Health Canada medical device & SaMD regulations (incl. AI/ML guidances) Governs clinical‑grade AI used as a device in Canada.²³²²²⁸
Australia – TGA medical device / software regulation (incl. AI/ML) Similar to EU/US frameworks for clinical AI/ML.²²⁸
Brazil – ANVISA health product and software regulation Governs medical devices and healthcare software in Brazil.²³²²³¹

Financial services / corporate – US, Canada, EU, UK, Australia, Brazil

SOX – Sarbanes‑Oxley Act (US) Financial reporting controls, including IT general controls; often a driver for SOC 1, access/logging, and change controls.²¹⁸
GLBA – Gramm‑Leach‑Bliley Act (US) Financial privacy and safeguards rules; similar themes to banking secrecy and data‑protection laws.²¹⁸
PCI DSS – Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (global, card‑processing) Industry standard for cardholder data security; common add‑on for SaaS handling payments.²¹⁹²¹³
Basel / EBA / PRA / OSFI financial risk & ICT guidelines (EU, UK, Canada) Banking supervisors’ frameworks (e.g., EBA ICT guidelines, UK PRA SS1/21, OSFI guidelines) affecting cloud/ICT risk and third‑party AI services in financial institutions.²³³²¹³
SOX‑like and corporate disclosure regimes in other jurisdictions (e.g., Canada NI 52‑109, EU/UK corporate reporting rules) Not always separate “frameworks” but effectively push controls over financial systems and IT similar to SOX.²³³²¹⁸

If you want, next step I can categorize these 30 into a single matrix header row (columns: Region, Domain, Typical Applicability, How to map into your AI/ISMS/AIMS matrix) so you can quickly scope which ones to include for a given tenant or deployment. ²³⁴²³⁵

⁂

categorize these 30 into a single matrix header row (columns: Region, Domain, Typical Applicability, How to map into your AI/ISMS/AIMS matrix) so you can quickly scope which ones to include for a given tenant or deployment. Compare HIPAA GDPR and LGPD key data protection requirements

Create crosswalk matrix for top 10 frameworks across these countries Which frameworks apply to AI in healthcare in US Europe Brazil Implementation roadmap for SOX HIPAA and PIPEDA compliance Prioritize frameworks by industry healthcare finance in Australia UK Canada

Below is a concise, paste‑ready answer structured for your matrix and planning work.

1. Matrix header + categorized 30 frameworks

Use this as a single header + rows format (you can add more columns as needed).

| Framework | Region(s) | Domain | Typical applicability | How to map into AI/ISMS/AIMS matrix |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | Global | Security / ISMS | Any SaaS, healthcare, finance, cloud infra | Use as base security control set; map Annex A controls to AI components (access, logging, SDLC, change, vendors, BC/DR). |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | Global | AI governance | Any org building/using material AI (LLMs, agents) | Treat as AIMS overlay on ISMS; rows for AI risk, lifecycle, bias, oversight, logging, incidents, aligned to ISO 27001. |
| SOC 1 | Global (US‑centric) | Financial reporting | Services impacting customers’ ICFR (billing, claims, GL) | Map system and ICFR-related ITGCs (access, change, logging) to matrix rows used for finance‑critical AI components. |
| SOC 2 | Global (US‑centric) | SaaS trust (Security, etc.) | SaaS / cloud services with customer data | Add “SOC 2 TSC” column; reuse existing rows (security, availability, confidentiality, privacy, PI) as evidence anchors. |
| NIST CSF | Global (US‑rooted) | Security risk mgmt | Broad use; often in US healthcare/finance | Map Identify–Protect–Detect–Respond–Recover to existing rows (asset mgmt, protection, monitoring, IR, BC/DR). |
| NIST SP 800‑53 / FedRAMP | Global (US gov) | Detailed security controls | Cloud, gov contractors, high‑assurance systems | Use as secondary mapping column; align your ISO 27001/SOC 2 rows to key 800‑53 families where required. |
| NIST AI RMF | Global (US‑rooted) | AI risk mgmt | Any AI/ML, especially US healthcare/finance | Add “G/M/Me/Ma” tags per AI row (risk, data, bias, lifecycle, logging) to show RMF coverage. |
| GDPR | EU/EEA (extraterritorial) | Data protection | Any processing of EU personal data | Add “GDPR” column; reference Arts 5, 6, 9, 24–25, 30, 32, 35 per row (risk, data governance, rights, DPIA). |
| UK GDPR + DPA 2018 | UK | Data protection | UK personal data | Same pattern as GDPR; often a single “EU/UK DP” mapping column is sufficient. |
| CCPA/CPRA | US (California) | Consumer privacy | B2C / data about CA residents | Add “US state privacy” column; rows for notices, opt‑out/Do‑Not‑Sell/Share, sensitive data limits, risk assessments. |
| Other US state privacy laws | US | Consumer privacy | States with GDPR‑like laws | Treat as umbrella in same column as CCPA/CPRA with notes where stricter (rights, opt‑out signals). |
| PIPEDA | Canada | Data protection | Canadian private sector | Add to DP column; map to GDPR‑like rows (lawful basis, safeguards, breach notice, rights, cross‑border). |
| LGPD | Brazil | Data protection | Brazilian data subjects | Add “LGPD” column; map to GDPR rows, plus right to explanation, DPIA on ANPD request, flexible breach timing.[web:160][web:163][web:170] |
| Australian Privacy Act + APPs | Australia | Data protection | Australian personal data | Add to DP column; map to rows for privacy principles, notices, access/correction, cross‑border. |
| EU AI Act | EU (extraterritorial) | AI regulation | AI systems incl. high‑risk healthcare AI | Add “EU AI Act risk class + article” column; rows for risk mgmt, data, transparency, oversight, robustness, QMS, PMM.[web:111][web:118] |
| OECD AI Principles | Global | AI principles | High‑level AI ethics | Use as non‑binding reference in governance row; no extra column needed unless you want “ethics” traceability. |
| DSA/DMA | EU | Platforms / gatekeepers | Intermediary services, large platforms | Limited impact unless you’re a platform; map to transparency/content rows if relevant. |
| HIPAA | US | Health data | Covered entities, BAs, ePHI | Add “HIPAA” column; map Security Rule safeguards into access, logging, integrity, transmission, risk rows.[web:96][web:156][web:166] |
| HITECH | US | Health data / EHR | HIPAA + EHR/breach | Mostly captured via HIPAA + breach rows; note in incident/breach rows for reporting timelines/enhancements. |
| FDA device & SaMD regs | US | Medical devices / AI SaMD | Clinical AI used as devices | Rows for V&V, clinical validation, post‑market surveillance, QMS; tag with “device‑grade AI” scope flag. |
| EU MDR/IVDR | EU | Medical devices/diagnostics | Clinical AI in EU | Same as FDA row but with MDR/IVDR refs; link to EU AI Act “high‑risk via MDR/IVDR”. |
| UK MHRA SaMD | UK | Medical devices | Clinical AI in UK | Mirror MDR/FDA row; device‑grade AI only. |
| Health Canada device regs | Canada | Medical devices | Clinical AI in Canada | Same row pattern; just add country‑specific citation. |
| TGA device regs | Australia | Medical devices | Clinical AI in AU | As above. |
| ANVISA health regs | Brazil | Health products | Brazilian medical software/devices | As above; pair with LGPD and right‑to‑explanation for AI in health.[web:146][web:165][web:170] |
| SOX | US (influence global) | Financial reporting | Public companies, ICFR systems | Map to rows for ICFR‑relevant ITGCs (access, change, logging) and financial AI use cases. |
| GLBA | US | Financial privacy | Financial institutions | Map to DP + security rows for financial data, akin to HIPAA but for FS. |
| PCI DSS | Global | Payments | Cardholder data environments | Add “PCI DSS” column; map only rows touching card data (network segmentation, encryption, logging, vulnerability mgmt). |
| Basel/EBA/PRA/OSFI ICT guidance | EU/UK/CA | Banking risk / ICT | Banks and some fintech | Label as “FS regulator guidance”; map to vendor risk, cloud risk, resilience, incident rows if in banking vertical. |
| SOX‑like / corporate reporting | Various | Corporate controls | Issuers outside US | Only if your customers are subject; treat like SOX with local citations. |

High‑level comparison for your matrix.²³⁶²³⁷²³⁸²³⁹²⁴⁰²⁴¹

Scope
- HIPAA: only PHI/ePHI handled by covered entities and business associates in US healthcare.²³⁸²⁴²
- GDPR: all personal data of individuals in the EU, across sectors.²³⁷²³⁸
- LGPD: all personal data of individuals in Brazil; very GDPR‑like but with local nuances.²³⁹²⁴¹²³⁶
Legal basis / permitted uses
- HIPAA: relies on permitted uses and disclosures of PHI (treatment, payment, operations, etc.) plus authorizations; no general “lawful basis” list.²⁴⁰²³⁸
- GDPR: requires one of several lawful bases (consent, contract, legal obligation, vital interests, public task, legitimate interests).²⁴³²³⁷
- LGPD: similar to GDPR but with a slightly different set of legal bases (e.g., protection of credit, rights for deceased persons).²³⁶²³⁹
Data subject rights
- HIPAA: rights to access and amend PHI, accounting of disclosures; no “right to be forgotten”.²³⁷²³⁸
- GDPR: broad rights (access, rectification, erasure, restriction, portability, objection, rights around automated decisions).²⁴³²³⁷
- LGPD: broadly similar rights (access, correction, anonymization, portability, deletion, information about sharing and consent revocation).²⁴¹²³⁹²³⁶
Security safeguards
- HIPAA: prescriptive Security Rule (admin, physical, technical safeguards – access, audit, integrity, transmission security).²⁴²²⁴⁴
- GDPR: Art 32’s “appropriate technical and organizational measures” – risk‑based; detailed via ENISA, ISO 27001 etc.²⁴⁵²³⁷
- LGPD: similar risk‑based safeguards; ANPD guidance influences specifics.²³⁹²⁴¹²³⁶
Breach notification
- HIPAA: notify affected individuals (and HHS if >500) without unreasonable delay, no later than 60 days after discovery.²⁴²²³⁷
- GDPR: notify DPA within 72 hours where feasible; data subjects “without undue delay” if high risk.²³⁷²⁴³
- LGPD: “within a reasonable time period”, with the ANPD defining reasonableness; less prescriptive than GDPR.²³⁶²³⁹
AI‑related points
- GDPR and LGPD: rights related to automated decisions and right to explanation / human review; central to AI use in health.²⁴¹²⁴³
- HIPAA: no explicit AI language; AI must comply with all PHI rules (minimum necessary, safeguards, BAAs, etc.).²⁴⁶²⁴⁷

3. Crosswalk matrix for top 10 frameworks (sketch)

Top 10 (opinionated for your context): ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, NIST AI RMF, GDPR, HIPAA, LGPD, EU AI Act, HITRUST CSF.²⁴⁸²⁴⁹²⁵⁰

Basic row skeleton:

| Control theme | ISO 27001 | ISO 42001 | SOC 2 (TSC) | NIST CSF | NIST AI RMF | GDPR | HIPAA | LGPD | EU AI Act | HITRUST CSF |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| AI risk assessment & treatment | A.5.4 | Risk & impact clauses | CC3.x | ID.RA | G/M/Ma | Art 35 | 164.308(a)(1) | DPIA on request | Art 9, 26 | Risk mgmt domains |
| Data governance (AI) | A.5.12–14 | Data gov. Annex A | CC6.x, CC8.x | ID.AM / PR.DS | G/M/Me | Arts 5, 6, 9, 30 | 164.306, 312(c) | similar to GDPR | Art 10 | Data protection domain |
| Access control | A.5.15–18 | AI config access | CC6.x | PR.AC | – | Art 32 | 164.312(a) | Art 46 | – | Access control domain |
| Logging & monitoring | A.8.x | AI logging & incidents | CC7.x | DE, RS | Me/Ma | Arts 30, 32, 33 | 164.312(b), 308(a)(6) | logging + breach | Art 12, 72–73 | Logging / IR domains |
| Bias & fairness | – (mapped via risk) | Bias controls | PI/Privacy criteria | ID.RA / PR.AC | G/M/Me/Ma | Arts 5(1)(a), 9 | – | fairness as DP aspect | Art 10 | Risk/quality mgmt |
| Model lifecycle & V&V | A.8 dev controls | Lifecycle & V&V | CC6, CC7 | PR.IP | G/M/Me/Ma | Arts 25, 32, 35 | 164.306/308 | – | Arts 9, 15, 17 | SDLC/testing domains |

You can fill exact clause numbers using Annex lists and HITRUST mappings.²⁵¹²⁵²²⁵³²⁵⁴

4. Which frameworks apply to AI in healthcare (US, EU, Brazil)

United States (platform + SaaS + clinical AI):²⁴⁴²⁵⁰²⁴¹

HIPAA (+ HITECH) – any PHI.
FDA device/SaMD rules – if AI is part of device‑grade functionality.
NIST CSF / 800‑53 – often via HITRUST or federal contracts.
NIST AI RMF – strong reference for AI risk.
SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / HITRUST CSF – for security and privacy assurance in SaaS/infra.
US state privacy laws (incl. CCPA/CPRA) – for consumer‑facing tools.

Europe (EU/EEA):²⁵⁵²⁵⁶²⁵⁷

GDPR – all personal data.
EU AI Act – AI systems, especially high‑risk healthcare AI.
MDR/IVDR – for AI medical devices.
ISO 27001 / SOC 2 / NIST CSF – as supporting frameworks.

Brazil:²⁵⁸²⁴¹²³⁶

LGPD – all personal data; key starting point for AI in health.²⁴¹
ANVISA medical software/device rules – for clinical AI.
ISO 27001 / SOC 2 / NIST CSF – for security posture.
Emerging AI guidance anchored in LGPD “right to explanation” and algorithmic transparency.²⁴¹

5. Implementation roadmap: SOX, HIPAA, PIPEDA (very high level)

Phase 1 – Baseline ISMS + controls
- Stand up ISO 27001‑aligned ISMS covering access, logging, SDLC, change, vendors, BC/DR.
- This underpins SOX ITGCs, HIPAA Security Rule, and PIPEDA safeguards.
Phase 2 – Sector overlays
- HIPAA: implement PHI‑specific safeguards, BAAs, risk analysis, breach processes, and NPPs; map into matrix rows.
- SOX: identify ICFR‑relevant apps (billing, GL, revenue) and tighten access, change, and logging; align with auditors’ ICFR scope.
- PIPEDA: define purposes and lawful basis, consent and notice flows, cross‑border controls, and breach notification process.
Phase 3 – Evidence & attestation
- Harmonize evidence (policies, logs, tickets) so each control row supports all three frameworks where relevant.
- Pursue SOC 1 (for ICFR) and SOC 2/HITRUST (for HIPAA & PIPEDA) as external attestation if needed.

6. Prioritizing frameworks by industry (AU, UK, CA)

Healthcare SaaS

Core: ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, NIST 800‑53 (if gov), HIPAA (US), GDPR/UK GDPR (EU/UK), PIPEDA (CA), LGPD (BR), Australian Privacy Act (AU), HITRUST CSF for US healthcare.²⁵⁰²⁴⁸
AI: ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act (EU), LGPD AI interpretation (BR).²⁵⁹²⁴¹
Devices: MDR/IVDR, MHRA, Health Canada, TGA, FDA depending on jurisdiction.

Finance / fintech

Core: ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, PCI DSS; GLBA (US), local banking/ICT guidance (Basel/EBA/PRA/OSFI).²⁶⁰²⁵⁰
Privacy: GDPR/UK GDPR, PIPEDA, CCPA/CPRA, LGPD, APPs.

In practice, per tenant you select: (country privacy + sector law + security/AI stack) and mark those columns as “in scope” in your matrix for that deployment. ²⁶¹²⁶²

⁂

Provide detailed mapping examples for top 5 frameworks in the matrix to ISO 42001

Which 10 frameworks from the matrix are most critical for AI in healthcare Create a prioritized list based on matrix for global AI companies How to implement the matrix as an Excel template for compliance scoping Show cross-mappings between privacy regs like GDPR CCPA LGPD and AIMS

Below are concrete deliverables for your implementation.

1. Detailed mapping examples: Top 5 frameworks → ISO 42001

Using: ISO 27001, SOC 2, NIST AI RMF, GDPR, EU AI Act as the top 5.²⁶³²⁶⁴²⁶⁵²⁶⁶²⁶⁷²⁶⁸

1.1 ISO 27001 → ISO 42001

Clause alignment: ISO 42001 mirrors the management‑system structure (clauses 4–10) of ISO 27001; both require context, leadership, planning, support, operation, evaluation, improvement.²⁶⁹²⁶⁷
Control reuse: AI systems rely on ISO 27001 Annex A controls for information security (access, logging, SDLC, change, vendor, BC/DR); ISO 42001 Annex A adds AI‑specific controls (AI risk, data governance, bias, lifecycle, oversight).²⁶⁶²⁶⁷
Concrete mapping:
- ISO 27001 Clause 6 (Planning → risk mgmt) = ISO 42001 Clause 6 + Annex A risk & impact controls (extended with AI‑specific risks: bias, safety, misuse).²⁶⁷
- ISO 27001 A.5.12–14 (Information classification/labeling/handling) → ISO 42001 Annex A data governance controls (training data quality, lineage, PHI/PII handling in AI pipelines).²⁶⁷
- ISO 27001 A.8.x (Ops security, change mgmt) → ISO 42001 Annex A lifecycle and deployment controls (model versioning, prompt changes, tool additions, re‑validation gates).²⁶⁵²⁶⁷

1.2 SOC 2 (TSC) → ISO 42001

Mapping logic: SOC 2's Common Criteria (CC1–CC9) and category‑specific criteria (Security, Availability, Confidentiality, Privacy, Processing Integrity) align with AIMS controls.²⁷⁰²⁷¹
Concrete mapping:
- CC3 (Risk assessment & treatment) = ISO 42001 Clause 6 + Annex A AI risk assessment (identify AI‑specific risks and treatments).²⁷²²⁶⁹
- CC6 (Logical/physical access) = ISO 42001 rows on access control for AI configs, models, data, and logs.²⁷²
- CC7 (System operations, monitoring, change) = ISO 42001 Annex A deployment, monitoring, and change controls for AI components.²⁶⁹²⁷²
- Privacy criteria (P1–P8) = ISO 42001 data governance, transparency, and data‑subject‑rights support where AI processes personal data.²⁷¹²⁷³

1.3 NIST AI RMF → ISO 42001

Official crosswalk exists: NIST AI RMF to ISO 42001 FDIS mapping.²⁶⁸²⁷⁴²⁶⁵
Structure: NIST's four functions (Govern, Map, Measure, Manage) map across ISO 42001 clauses and Annex A.²⁷⁵²⁶⁵²⁶⁶
Concrete mapping:
- GOVERN (governance & policy) → ISO 42001 Clauses 4–5 (Context, leadership, roles) and Annex A governance controls (AI policy, AIMS scope, governance body).²⁶⁵²⁶⁶
- MAP (context, risks, opportunities) → ISO 42001 Clause 6 (Risk mgmt planning) and Annex A AI risk/impact assessments (stakeholder mapping, use‑case identification, risk ID).²⁶⁶²⁶⁵
- MEASURE (metrics, testing, evaluation) → ISO 42001 Clause 9 (Performance evaluation) and Annex A monitoring, testing, and validation controls (bias metrics, model performance, continuous monitoring).²⁶⁵²⁶⁶
- MANAGE (incident response, CAPA, resilience) → ISO 42001 Clause 10 (Improvement) and Annex A operational, incident, and improvement controls (AI incident mgmt, CAPA, re‑validation triggers).²⁶⁶²⁶⁵

GDPR focus: data protection, rights, lawful basis, accountability, DPIAs.²⁷³²⁷⁶²⁷⁷
ISO 42001 integration: AIMS operationalizes privacy‑by‑design and data governance for AI.²⁷⁷²⁷³
Concrete mapping:
- GDPR Art 5 (Principles) = ISO 42001 Annex A data governance (lawfulness, fairness, minimization, accuracy, retention in AI data pipelines).²⁷⁶²⁷⁷
- Art 24–25 (Accountability, privacy by design) = ISO 42001 Clauses 4–10 (management‑system accountability) and Annex A design & lifecycle controls (privacy‑preserving training, PHI minimization in prompts).²⁷³²⁷⁷
- Art 35 (DPIA) = ISO 42001 AI risk & impact assessments (combined DPIA + clinical impact + bias assessment for AI systems processing personal data).²⁷⁸²⁷⁷
- Art 32 (Security) = ISO 42001 leveraging ISO 27001 security controls + AI‑specific technical safeguards (prompt‑injection defenses, access to models/logs).²⁷⁷²⁷³

1.5 EU AI Act → ISO 42001

EU AI Act focus: risk classification (high‑risk systems), lifecycle obligations (risk mgmt, data gov, transparency, human oversight, robustness, QMS, post‑market).²⁷⁹²⁸⁰²⁶³
ISO 42001 as implementation framework: You can use ISO 42001 to meet many EU AI Act requirements systematically.²⁸¹²⁶³²⁷⁹
Concrete mapping:
- Art 9 (Risk management system) = ISO 42001 Clause 6 + Annex A risk & impact controls (lifecycle risk management for high‑risk AI).²⁸⁰²⁶⁵
- Art 10 (Data & data governance) = ISO 42001 Annex A data governance controls (training data quality, bias detection, documentation, lineage).²⁸⁰²⁶⁵
- Art 12 (Record‑keeping / logging) = ISO 42001 Annex A logging controls (automatic logs for AI decisions and data processing events).²⁸⁰²⁶⁵
- Art 13–14 (Transparency & human oversight) = ISO 42001 Annex A transparency and oversight controls (user information, model cards, human review/override mechanisms).²⁶⁵²⁸⁰
- Art 15 (Accuracy, robustness, cybersecurity) = ISO 42001 Annex A lifecycle, V&V, and technical robustness controls (testing, monitoring, adversarial robustness).²⁸⁰²⁶⁵
- Art 17, 72–73 (QMS, post‑market monitoring, serious incident reporting) = ISO 42001 Clauses 9–10 + Annex A incident & improvement controls (incident mgmt, CAPA, periodic reviews).²⁶⁵²⁸⁰

2. Top 10 most critical frameworks for AI in healthcare (prioritized list)

Based on scope, enforcement, and real‑world adoption.²⁸²²⁸³²⁸⁴²⁸⁵²⁸⁶

HIPAA (US) – foundational for PHI in US healthcare SaaS/AI.²⁸³²⁸⁵
GDPR (EU/EEA) – comprehensive data protection for EU personal data, including health data.²⁸⁴²⁸³
ISO 42001 – certifiable AI management system standard; increasingly expected by enterprise buyers and regulators.²⁸²²⁸³
EU AI Act – binding regulation for high‑risk healthcare AI in EU; strong enforcement and penalties.²⁸³²⁸⁴
ISO 27001 – baseline ISMS underpinning security for healthcare AI platforms.²⁸⁵²⁸³
SOC 2 – de‑facto trust attestation for healthcare SaaS; often contractually required.²⁸⁵²⁸³
NIST AI RMF – primary US AI risk reference; increasingly referenced in US healthcare (ONC HTI‑1, etc.).²⁸²²⁸³
FDA device & SaMD regulations (US) – mandatory for clinical AI classified as devices; includes premarket and post‑market obligations.²⁸⁴²⁸³
HITRUST CSF (US) – harmonized control framework widely used in US healthcare to demonstrate HIPAA + ISO + NIST compliance in one cert.²⁸⁵²⁸²
LGPD (Brazil) – data protection law for Brazilian health data with AI‑specific implications (right to explanation).²⁸⁷²⁸⁸

Honorable mentions (11–15): MDR/IVDR (EU), NIST CSF, PIPEDA (Canada), UK GDPR/MHRA, Australian Privacy Act + TGA.

3. Prioritized list for global AI companies (any sector)

Ordering by breadth, extraterritorial reach, and enforceability.²⁸⁹²⁹⁰²⁶³²⁸⁴

ISO 42001 – global AI management system standard, certifiable, cross‑sector.
ISO 27001 – global security baseline.
GDPR – broad extraterritorial reach for EU data subjects.
SOC 2 – trust standard for SaaS/cloud globally.
NIST AI RMF – US AI risk framework, increasingly influential globally.
EU AI Act – binding in EU with extraterritorial provisions for non‑EU providers.
CCPA/CPRA – California (and model for other US states).
LGPD – Brazil data protection.
UK GDPR + DPA 2018 – UK post‑Brexit.
NIST CSF – global security risk reference.
PIPEDA – Canada data protection.
Australian Privacy Act – Australia data protection.
PCI DSS – if processing card payments.
Sector‑specific overlays (HIPAA, FDA, MDR, financial regs) – add as needed per vertical.

For multi‑region AI SaaS: Start with 1–6; layer 7–12 per geography; add 13–14 per use case.

4. Implementing the matrix as an Excel template for compliance scoping

Structure (tabs)

Tab 1: Framework catalog (30 rows)

Columns: Framework name, Region(s), Domain, Typical applicability, Status (In scope Y/N), Notes.
Populate with the 30 frameworks; use dropdown for "Status" (Yes/No/Planned).

Tab 2: Control universe (your master matrix)

Columns:
- Control theme
- Control objective
- ISO 27001 Annex A
- ISO 42001 (clause / Annex A)
- SOC 2 TSC
- NIST CSF
- NIST AI RMF
- GDPR
- HIPAA
- LGPD
- EU AI Act
- HITRUST
- Other frameworks (flexible columns)
- Implementation (free text)
- Evidence artifacts (free text)
- Owner
- Status (dropdown: Planned / In design / Implemented / Monitored)
Rows: your control themes (AI risk, data gov, access, logging, bias, lifecycle, etc.).

Tab 3: Tenant/project scoping

Columns: Tenant/Project name, Country, Industry, Selected frameworks (list), Notes.
Each row = one deployment; reference Tab 1 frameworks marked "In scope".

Tab 4: Evidence tracker

Columns: Control theme, Evidence artifact name, Location (URL/path), Last updated, Owner, Linked frameworks.
Link to Tab 2 rows.

Tab 5: Audit readiness checklist

Columns: Framework, Audit date, Auditor, Checklist items (Y/N), Notes.

Formulas and automation

Use data validation for dropdowns (Status, Framework selection).
Conditional formatting to highlight "Not started" or "Missing evidence".
COUNTIF / SUMIF to generate summary dashboards (e.g., "15/30 frameworks in scope", "85% controls implemented").

Example scoping workflow

Sales/CS identifies new tenant → enters in Tab 3 with country + industry.
Compliance lead checks Tab 1, marks relevant frameworks "In scope" for that tenant.
Tab 2 auto‑highlights which control rows are triggered (you can use filters or helper columns checking which framework columns are non‑empty for frameworks marked "Yes" in Tab 1).
Implementation team uses Tab 2 to track status and evidence per control.
Tab 4 collects all artifacts; Tab 5 preps for audit.

Key themes with mapping cells:²⁹¹²⁹²²⁹³

AIMS control theme	GDPR ref	CCPA/CPRA ref	LGPD ref	How they converge in AIMS
Lawful basis / purpose limitation	Arts 5(1)(b), 6 (six lawful bases for processing).²⁷⁶²⁹³	No formal lawful‑basis requirement; opt‑out model instead.²⁹²²⁹³	Art 7 (ten legal bases similar to GDPR).²⁹⁴²⁹²	AIMS data governance includes: defined purposes for AI data use, lawful‑basis mapping (for GDPR/LGPD), and opt‑out/notice mechanisms (for CCPA). Document these in AI system design and data flow diagrams.
Data subject / consumer rights	Arts 15–22 (access, rectify, erase, restrict, port, object, automated decisions).²⁷⁶²⁹⁵	CCPA/CPRA: know, delete, correct, opt‑out of sale/share, limit sensitive PI use.²⁹¹²⁹²	Similar to GDPR (access, correction, anonymization, portability, deletion, consent revocation).²⁹⁶²⁹⁴	AIMS transparency and data governance rows ensure: AI data stores and logs are designed for rights handling (e.g., can locate and delete individual's data), explainability for automated decisions, and documented rights‑handling procedures.
Consent & notice	Consent = freely given, specific, informed, unambiguous (Art 4(11), 7).²⁹⁷²⁹²	Opt‑out‑based by default; CPRA adds some explicit consent for sensitive data and minors.²⁹⁷²⁹²	Consent = free, informed, unequivocal (similar to GDPR).²⁹⁴²⁹²	AIMS rows for data collection and use include: consent capture mechanisms where required, notice/transparency to users about AI use of their data, opt‑out flows (CCPA/CPRA), consent logs.
Security safeguards	Art 32 (appropriate technical/organizational measures).²⁷⁶²⁷⁷	CCPA/CPRA: "reasonable security" + cybersecurity audits for some high‑risk processing.²⁹²	Art 46–50 (security measures similar to GDPR).²⁹⁶²⁹⁴	AIMS leverages ISO 27001 security controls (access, logging, encryption, vulnerability mgmt) + AI‑specific safeguards (prompt‑injection defenses, model access control, PHI/PII minimization). All three laws satisfied by robust ISMS + AIMS.
Breach notification	Art 33–34 (DPA within 72h; data subjects without undue delay if high risk).²⁷⁶²⁹⁵	CCPA/CPRA: no specific timeline; "without unreasonable delay" following discovery of breach.²⁹²	"Reasonable time" + ANPD notification; less prescriptive than GDPR.²⁹⁶²⁹⁴	AIMS incident management rows include: AI incident taxonomy (including privacy/data incidents), breach detection and notification procedures, timelines per law, and logging to support forensics.
Cross‑border transfers	Chapter V (adequacy, SCC, BCR, derogations).²⁷⁶	CPRA global opt‑out signal; limited cross‑border provisions.²⁹²	Arts 33–36 (adequacy, safeguards, specific authorizations).²⁹⁴	AIMS data governance documents: where AI training/inference data resides, cross‑border data flow controls (DPAs, SCCs, BCRs for GDPR/LGPD), and technical measures (encryption, tokenization).
Accountability & DPIAs	Arts 24–25, 35 (accountability, privacy by design, DPIA for high‑risk).²⁷⁶²⁷⁷	CPRA introduces risk assessments and cybersecurity audits for some processors.²⁹²	Arts 38, 41 (controller accountability, DPIA on request by ANPD).²⁹⁴²⁸⁸	AIMS clauses 4–10 (management‑system accountability) + Annex A AI risk/impact assessments integrate DPIA requirements; for each high‑risk AI system, run combined privacy + AI impact assessment aligned to GDPR/LGPD/CPRA where applicable.

Practical takeaway: One set of AIMS control rows (data governance, transparency, rights, security, incidents, accountability) can simultaneously address GDPR, CCPA/CPRA, and LGPD by including the union of requirements and tagging each row with the relevant articles.

If you'd like, I can next generate a single consolidated Excel‑ready table (all columns: ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST CSF, NIST AI RMF, GDPR, HIPAA, LGPD, EU AI Act, HITRUST, plus Implementation, Evidence, Owner, Status) with 10–12 filled example rows so you have a working starter template. ²⁹⁸

⁂

have we liste all of the regulatory frameworks ? we said 30 should it have been more?

No, we definitely haven’t listed all relevant regulatory frameworks; 30 is a curated “core set”, not an exhaustive universe.²⁹⁹³⁰⁰

There are many additional, more specific regimes you’ll encounter in practice: individual US state health/privacy laws, sector rules (telecom, insurance), national AI strategies/guidelines, national cybersecurity acts, country‑specific banking/insurance regulators, etc.³⁰¹³⁰²²⁹⁹
For your matrix, 30–40 “top‑tier” frameworks is usually the right order of magnitude: beyond that, you mostly add sub‑variants or guidance that can be mapped into these major parents (e.g., individual US state privacy laws → a single “US state privacy” row; country‑specific AI guidelines → mapped under ISO 42001 / NIST AI RMF / EU AI Act rows).³⁰⁰³⁰³³⁰⁴

If you want, next step I can propose 5–10 additional “second‑tier” frameworks (e.g., ONC/21st Century Cures, local cybersecurity laws, insurance/PCI‑adjacent rules) and show how to attach them as child mappings to your existing 30 so the matrix doesn’t explode.

⁂

ropose 5–10 additional “second‑tier” frameworks (e.g., ONC/21st Century Cures, local cybersecurity laws, insurance/PCI‑adjacent rules) and show how to attach them as child mappings to your existing 30 so the matrix doesn’t explode.

Here’s a compact set of “second‑tier” frameworks and how to attach them as child mappings to your existing 30 without blowing up the matrix.

1. 5–10 second‑tier frameworks (with where they sit)

ONC 21st Century Cures Act – Information Blocking & Interoperability (US)
- Focus: Prohibits “information blocking” for electronic health information (EHI), mandates open APIs and patient access.³⁰⁵³⁰⁶³⁰⁷³⁰⁸³⁰⁹
- Attach as child of: HIPAA + US healthcare cluster.
- In matrix: add a “US health policy” mapping column or a note under relevant rows (patient access, interoperability, audit logs for EHI sharing).
US ONC Health IT Certification Program (US)
- Focus: Certification criteria for EHR/health IT (API access, security, data export), tied to Cures Act.³¹⁰³⁰⁵
- Attach as child of: HIPAA / US healthcare stack.
- In matrix: map to rows for interoperability, API security, and patient access; no need for dedicated rows.
Australia Security of Critical Infrastructure Act (SoCI) – healthcare & medical (AU)
- Focus: Critical infrastructure risk management programs and mandatory cyber‑incident reporting for health and medical sectors.³¹¹³¹²³¹³³¹⁴
- Attach as child of: Australian Privacy Act + NIST CSF / ISO 27001.
- In matrix: add “AU SoCI” in a regional column, mapping to rows for risk mgmt, incident reporting timelines, and BC/DR for critical infrastructure.
Brazil – Sectoral cybersecurity / data‑exchange rules (health, insurance, telecom)
- Examples:
  - TISS standard for healthcare data exchange in private health insurance.³¹⁵
  - SUSEP cyber requirements for insurers; sector‑specific incident and security expectations.³¹⁶³¹⁷
- Attach as child of: LGPD + ANVISA / Brazilian health & FS regulators.
- In matrix: map to rows for interoperability standards, incident response, sector‑specific reporting; tag with “Brazil – TISS/SUSEP”.
Brazil Internet Civil Framework + cybersecurity expectations
- Focus: general principles for internet use, privacy, and data security; national cyber expectations for operators.³¹⁶³¹⁵
- Attach as child of: LGPD and ISO 27001 / NIST CSF.
- In matrix: small note under security rows for Brazil network & platform operators.
National health‑sector cybersecurity guidelines (e.g., HHS/OCR, NHS DSPT, AU health‑sector guides)
- Focus: interpretive guidance on applying HIPAA, UK GDPR/NHS requirements, SoCI, etc., to health IT systems.³¹³³¹⁸³¹⁹
- Attach as child of: HIPAA, GDPR/UK GDPR, SoCI, ISO 27001.
- In matrix: reference in implementation notes, not as separate framework columns.
Insurance‑specific cyber requirements (e.g., SUSEP in Brazil, NAIC Cybersecurity Model Law in US)
- Focus: mandating cybersecurity programs, incident reporting, third‑party risk for insurers.³¹⁷³¹⁶
- Attach as child of: financial‑services cluster (GLBA, ISO 27001, NIST CSF).
- In matrix: a “FS/Insurance” note in rows for risk, incident, vendor mgmt when in that vertical.
Telecom / critical comms security rules (for telehealth / remote monitoring)
- Focus: network integrity, availability, resilience, and incident reporting (varies by country).³¹⁷
- Attach as child of: NIST CSF / ISO 27001 / local telecom regs.
- In matrix: mention in availability, BC/DR, incident rows for telehealth or IoT.
National AI strategies / ethical guidelines (non‑binding)
- Many countries publish AI ethics guidelines (e.g., Brazil’s AI strategy, Australia’s AI ethics, UK’s AI guidance) that mirror OECD principles.³²⁰³²¹
- Attach as child of: OECD AI Principles + ISO 42001 / NIST AI RMF.
- In matrix: reference them in AI governance / ethics row, without separate columns.
Local cybercrime / computer misuse laws
- E.g., Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (US), UK Computer Misuse Act, Brazilian cybercrime laws.
- Attach as child of: security & incident cluster (ISO 27001 / NIST CSF).
- In matrix: only referenced in legal/regulatory mapping notes, not as control drivers.

2. How to attach as “child mappings” in your matrix

To avoid explosion:

A. Add a single “Regional / child frameworks” column

In your main control matrix, keep core columns for the 30 frameworks (ISO 27001, 42001, HIPAA, GDPR, LGPD, EU AI Act, NIST CSF, NIST AI RMF, SOC 2, etc.), then add:

Column: Regional / child mappings (examples)

Populate with comma‑separated notes, e.g.:

For Interoperability & patient access row:
- ONC Cures Act Information Blocking (US), ONC Health IT Cert (US), TISS (BR)
For Critical infra risk & incident reporting row:
- AU SoCI Act (healthcare), sector cyber obligations (BR, SUSEP)

This keeps second‑tier frameworks as metadata, not new columns.

B. Use a separate “child mapping” tab keyed by framework

Create a tab: Child_Mappings:

Columns: Parent framework, Child framework, Region, Domain, Mapped control themes, Notes.
Examples:
- HIPAA → ONC Cures / Info Blocking (US) – Interoperability, patient access, EHI audit
- LGPD → TISS (BR) – healthcare data exchange, interoperability, security
- Australian Privacy Act / ISO 27001 → SoCI (AU) – critical infra risk mgmt, incident reporting

When you scope a US healthcare tenant, you mark HIPAA = in scope, and the playbook tells you: “check Child_Mappings for HIPAA” → apply ONC/Cures specifics where applicable.

C. In code / automation terms

If you eventually encode this:

parent_framework_id (e.g., HIPAA)
child_framework_id (e.g., ONC_CURES_INFO_BLOCKING)
applies_to_control_theme_ids (list of rows like interoperability, patient_access, logging)

Then your UI can show “derived requirements” without bloating the primary matrix.

If you like, next step I can:

Draft a Child_Mappings table (10–15 rows) you can drop into a new tab, keyed by parent framework, with “where it bites AI/healthcare” summarized for each. ³²²³²³

⁂

Create full matrix with child mappings for all 40 frameworks

How to prioritize second-tier frameworks for healthcare AI Provide implementation checklist for ONC Cures Act compliance Map HIPAA to Australia critical infrastructure health rules Examples of penalties for 21st Century Cures Act violations

You’re in good shape with ~40; a full per‑framework matrix would be huge, so I’ll give you (1) a scalable pattern and (2) focused answers to the ONC / HIPAA–AU / penalties pieces.

1) Pattern for “full matrix with child mappings” (all ~40)

Rather than one gigantic table, implement a two‑layer model:

A. Parent framework matrix (your existing 30)

Columns (simplified):

Framework
Region(s)
Domain
Typical applicability
Key control themes (risk, data, access, logging, lifecycle, incidents, etc.)

You already have this.

B. Child mapping table (adds the 5–10 “second tier”)

Create a separate table keyed by parent:

| Parent framework | Child framework | Region | Domain | Mapped control themes | Notes / triggers |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| HIPAA | ONC 21st Century Cures – Info Blocking & ONC Health IT Cert | US | Healthcare IT / EHR | Interoperability, patient access, logging, API security | Applies when you are a “health IT developer of certified health IT”, HIN/HIE, or provider exchanging EHI.[web:182][web:192][web:205] |
| HIPAA | HHS / ONC health‑sector cyber guidance | US | Healthcare security | Risk mgmt, incident response, BC/DR | Refines how you implement NIST CSF/ISO 27001 controls in US healthcare.[web:96][web:153] |
| LGPD | Brazil TISS / SUSEP sector rules | BR | Health insurance / insurance | Interoperability, data exchange formats, incident reporting | Only if you integrate with Brazilian health‑plan systems or insurers.[web:188][web:191][web:194] |
| LGPD | Brazil Internet Civil + cyber expectations | BR | Platforms / ISPs | Security, logging, user rights | Only relevant if you act as a network/platform operator in Brazil.[web:188][web:191] |
| Australian Privacy Act + ISO 27001 | SoCI Act 2018 (healthcare & medical) | AU | Critical infra / healthcare | Risk mgmt programs, incident reporting, BC/DR | Applies if your service is designated “critical infrastructure” in health/medical.[web:190][web:193][web:196] |
| GDPR / UK GDPR | NHS DSPT / national health security guidance | UK | Healthcare | Security, incident response, data governance | Only for NHS‑connected workloads. |
| ISO 27001 / NIST CSF | National cybercrime / computer misuse laws | US/UK/BR/etc. | Legal / enforcement | Logging, incident response, forensics | Mostly affects incident & LEA cooperation; no separate technical controls. |
| OECD / ISO 42001 / NIST AI RMF | National AI ethics / strategies (e.g., AU, BR, UK) | Various | AI policy | AI governance, transparency, fairness | Non‑binding; use as reference in AI governance row. |
| NIST CSF / ISO 27001 | Insurance cyber regs (e.g., NAIC in US, SUSEP in BR) | US/BR | Financial / insurance | Risk mgmt, vendor mgmt, incident reporting | Only if you’re in insurance vertical. |
| NIST CSF / ISO 27001 | Telecom / e‑communications security regs | Various | Telehealth / IoT | Availability, BC/DR, network security | Only if you provide telecom/communication services. |

In Excel/Confluence you then:

Keep parents as columns in the main control matrix.
Keep children only in this table, referred to by parent + control themes, so the main matrix doesn’t grow more columns.

2) How to prioritize second‑tier frameworks for healthcare AI

Treat them as conditional overlays:

Always consider first‑tier: HIPAA / GDPR / LGPD / ISO 27001 / ISO 42001 / SOC 2 / NIST AI RMF / EU AI Act / MDR/FDA / HITRUST for healthcare.³²⁴³²⁵³²⁶³²⁷³²⁸
Second‑tier triggers:

US
- ONC Cures / information blocking / ONC Cert → if you are an EHR/health IT developer or provide core clinical record access.³²⁹³³⁰³³¹
- NAIC cyber or state health IT laws → if you serve insurers or health plans.
Australia
- SoCI Act → if classified as critical health infrastructure (hospitals, major digital health platforms).³³²³³³³³⁴
Brazil
- TISS / SUSEP / sector rules → if you exchange standardized health‑insurance data or operate in insurance.³³⁵³³⁶³³⁷
UK/EU
- NHS DSPT or national health guidance → only if integrating with NHS or national services.

So your scoping workflow: for each tenant/market, check region + role (EHR? hospital? insurer? critical infra?) and then add any child frameworks whose trigger conditions match.

3) Implementation checklist – ONC Cures Act (information blocking)

For a cloud/AI health platform, align to ONC’s information‑blocking and certification rules.³³⁸³³⁹³⁴⁰³³⁰³³¹³²⁹

Governance & scoping

Identify whether you are an “actor”: developer of certified health IT, HIN/HIE, or healthcare provider under the rule.³³¹³²⁹
Inventory systems that hold electronic health information (EHI) and are used for patient/provider access and exchange.³³⁹³³¹
Assign an information‑blocking compliance owner and cross‑functional working group (legal, compliance, product, engineering).

Policies & contracts

Adopt an information‑blocking policy:
- Define prohibited practices (unreasonable delays, fees, discriminatory terms) and allowed exceptions (privacy, security, infeasibility, health IT performance).³³⁸³²⁹³³¹
Review and amend EHR/health IT vendor contracts:
- Ensure no terms unlawfully restrict access, exchange, or use of EHI; address intellectual property and fees consistent with ONC rule.³²⁹³³⁸
Update BAAs and data use agreements to align with new data‑sharing obligations.

Technical capabilities

Implement or verify FHIR‑based APIs and other standard interfaces for EHI export and access per ONC certification criteria.³⁴⁰³³⁰³²⁹
Configure systems so that patients and providers can electronically access, exchange, and use EHI without unnecessary friction (e.g., self‑service portals, documented APIs).³⁴⁰³³¹
Ensure logging of requests/responses and configuration for audit and incident investigation.

Exceptions & workflows

Implement documented workflows for each information‑blocking exception (privacy, security, infeasibility, health IT performance, content/manner):
- For each exception, define when it applies, approvals required, documentation needed, and time limits.³³¹³³⁸³²⁹
Train staff on when they may deny or delay EHI and how to document exceptions.

Training & awareness

Train IT, HIM, clinicians, support, and legal on information‑blocking requirements, examples of prohibited practices, and exceptions.³³⁹³³⁸
Include information‑blocking scenarios in onboarding and periodic training.

Monitoring & audit

Create metrics and dashboards: EHI request volumes, turnaround times, denial rates, use of exceptions.³³⁹
Periodically audit EHI requests and responses to detect potential blocking (e.g., patterns of unexplained delays or denials).³³⁸
Document corrective actions and improvements if non‑compliant patterns are found.

4) Mapping HIPAA to Australian critical‑infrastructure health rules (SoCI + AU health)

You’ll mainly map HIPAA’s Security Rule and incident obligations into Australian privacy and critical‑infrastructure requirements.³⁴¹³⁴²³³³³³⁴

Security safeguards
- HIPAA: administrative, physical, technical safeguards (risk analysis, access, audit, integrity, transmission security).³⁴³³⁴⁴
- AU: Privacy Act + Notifiable Data Breaches scheme + SoCI require appropriate cybersecurity controls and incident reporting for health and medical critical infrastructure.³³³³³⁴³⁴⁵³³²
- Mapping: reuse ISO 27001 security rows; mark them as covering HIPAA Security Rule and SoCI cyber risk‑management duties.
Risk management
- HIPAA 164.308(a)(1): periodic risk analysis and management for ePHI.³⁴³
- SoCI: risk management program for critical infrastructure assets (including cyber and physical risks).³³⁴³³²³³³
- Mapping: your AI risk and cyber risk rows can note “also satisfies HIPAA risk analysis (US) and SoCI critical‑infrastructure risk mgmt (AU) when in these jurisdictions”.
Incident and breach notification
- HIPAA: report PHI breaches to individuals, HHS, media based on thresholds.³⁴⁴³⁴³
- AU: Notifiable Data Breaches scheme and SoCI require notifying OAIC and possibly ACSC and government for significant incidents.³⁴⁵³⁴¹³³³³³⁴
- Mapping: incident rows get region‑specific notification timelines and authorities; same detection and logging controls underpin both.
Patient rights & access
- HIPAA: right to access and obtain electronic copies of PHI.³⁴⁶
- AU: APPs grant access/correction rights and digital‑health policies define expectations for record access and identifiers.³⁴⁷³⁴¹
- Mapping: your EHI access / interoperability row can serve both HIPAA and AU laws, with region‑specific processes.

So the matrix doesn’t gain new rows; you annotate existing security, risk, incident, and access rows with: “HIPAA (US), Privacy Act + NDB + SoCI (AU)”.

5) Penalties for 21st Century Cures Act information‑blocking violations

The teeth are now very real.³⁴⁸³⁴⁹³⁵⁰³⁵¹³⁵²³⁵³³³⁹

Civil monetary penalties (developers, HINs/HIEs)
- For developers of certified health IT and health information exchanges/networks, OIG can impose civil monetary penalties up to USD 1 million per violation of information blocking.³⁴⁹³⁵¹³⁴⁸³³⁹
“Appropriate disincentives” for providers
- Health care providers found to have committed information blocking are not fined directly but face regulatory disincentives, including:³⁵⁴³⁵⁰³⁵²³⁵³
  - Potential loss of MIPS (Merit‑based Incentive Payment System) score eligibility (zero score, reduced Medicare payments).³⁵⁴
  - Ineligibility or removal from the Medicare Shared Savings Program for ACO participants for at least one year.³⁵⁰³⁵⁴
  - Public listing of offending providers by ONC (name, address, practice details, disincentives applied).³⁵²³⁵³
Enforcement status
- OIG’s CMP rule for developers/HINs/HIEs is in effect; enforcement can reach back to conduct after the effective date.³⁴⁹³⁵⁰³³⁹
- Provider disincentive rules became effective in 2024–2025; HHS has publicly signaled a “crackdown” and is starting active enforcement.³⁵³³⁵⁵³⁵⁰³⁵²

For your matrix, the “Regulatory & penalties” note on the ONC child mapping can simply say: “Up to $1M per violation for developers/HINs/HIEs; strong payment and program participation disincentives for providers.”³⁴⁸³⁵⁰³⁴⁹³⁵⁴³³⁹ ³⁵⁶

⁂

create mappings to industry types

Here’s a compact mapping from the ~40 frameworks to industry types you’re likely to care about (Healthcare, Life Sciences / MedTech, Finance, Insurance, SaaS / Cloud, Public Sector / Critical Infra).

Use this as a scoping helper: pick industry → see which frameworks are likely in play.

1. Matrix: Frameworks → Industries

| Framework | Healthcare providers / payers | Life sciences / MedTech (SaMD, devices) | Finance / banking / fintech | Insurance (health, P&C, other) | SaaS / cloud platforms (cross‑sector) | Public sector / critical infra |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | ✓ (AI in care ops, admin) | ✓ (clinical AI, R&D AI) | ✓ (AI in risk, trading, KYC) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| SOC 1 | △ (rev cycle, claims platforms) | △ (GxP finance systems) | ✓ | ✓ | △ | △ |
| SOC 2 | ✓ (health SaaS) | ✓ (clinical cloud platforms) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (non‑classified) |
| NIST CSF | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ (esp. US gov/critical) |
| NIST SP 800‑53 / FedRAMP | △ (if US gov / HIE contracts) | △ | ✓ (if US gov/FS) | △ | ✓ (US gov workloads) | ✓ (US federal) |
| NIST AI RMF | ✓ (AI decision support, triage, ops) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| GDPR | ✓ (EU patients, staff) | ✓ (clinical trials, EU devices) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| UK GDPR + DPA 2018 | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| CCPA/CPRA & other US state DP laws | ✓ (US consumer health apps, portals) | △ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | △ |
| PIPEDA (Canada) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | △ |
| LGPD (Brazil) | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Australian Privacy Act + APPs | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| EU AI Act | ✓ (clinical / high‑risk AI) | ✓ (AI SaMD) | △ (some risk mgt AI) | △ | ✓ (GPAI, AI services into EU) | △ |
| OECD AI Principles | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| DSA / DMA | △ (if acting as platform/intermediary) | △ | △ | △ | ✓ (platforms/marketplaces) | △ |
| HIPAA | ✓ (US covered entities / BAs) | △ (US clinical trials data, depending on role) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (if BA) | ✗ |
| HITECH | ✓ | △ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (BA / EHR) | ✗ |
| FDA device / SaMD regs (US) | △ (if developing clinical AI tools) | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ (if your SaaS is SaMD) | ✗ |
| EU MDR/IVDR | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✗ |
| UK MHRA SaMD | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✗ |
| Health Canada device regs | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✗ |
| TGA device regs (AU) | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✗ |
| ANVISA health regs (BR) | △ | ✓ | ✗ | ✗ | △ | ✗ |
| SOX | △ (health systems as issuers) | △ | ✓ (public companies) | ✓ (public insurers) | ✓ (if in scope of issuer) | △ |
| GLBA | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (US FIs) | △ (certain products) | △ | ✗ |
| PCI DSS | △ (if processing card payments) | △ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | △ |
| Basel/EBA/PRA/OSFI ICT guidance | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (banks) | ✓ (some groups) | △ (if providing critical services to banks) | ✗ |
| SOX‑like / local corporate reporting | △ | △ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | △ |
| ONC Cures / Info Blocking / ONC Cert (US) | ✓ (EHRs, HIN/HIEs, health IT developers) | △ (if providing core EHR/health IT) | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (health IT vendors) | ✗ |
| SoCI Act (AU critical infra – health/medical) | ✓ (major health services) | △ | △ | △ | ✓ (if designated health critical infra) | ✓ |
| Brazil TISS / SUSEP / sector rules | ✓ (private health plans data exchange) | △ | △ | ✓ (insurers) | △ | ✗ |
| National health‑sector cyber guidance (HHS, NHS, etc.) | ✓ | △ | ✗ | ✗ | ✓ (health SaaS) | ✓ (public health) |
| Insurance‑specific cyber regs (NAIC, SUSEP) | △ (if payer) | ✗ | △ | ✓ | △ | ✗ |
| Telecom / e‑communications security regs | △ (telehealth, RPM) | △ | △ | △ | ✓ (telecom‑like services) | ✓ (national networks) |
| National AI strategies / ethics codes | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |
| Cybercrime / computer misuse laws | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ | ✓ |

Legend:

✓ primary relevance for that industry.
△ conditional / use‑case‑dependent.
✗ usually not relevant.

You can now:

Add an “Industries” column to your framework catalog tab with values like Healthcare, LifeSci, SaaS.
Filter by industry when scoping a new tenant or product line.

Add an “Industries” column to your framework catalog tab with values like Healthcare, LifeSci, SaaS.

Filter by industry when scoping a new tenant or product line.

Add an Industries column, then use filtering. Concretely:

1) Framework catalog with “Industries” column (Excel/Sheets)

On your Frameworks tab, use columns like:

| Framework | Region(s) | Domain | Industries | Typical applicability |
| -- | -- | -- | -- | -- |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | Global | Security / ISMS | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector | Baseline ISMS for most tenants. |
| ISO/IEC 42001 | Global | AI governance | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; SaaS | Any material AI/LLM use. |
| HIPAA | US | Health data | Healthcare; SaaS | US PHI with CE/BA roles. |
| GDPR | EU/EEA (extra‑terr.) | Data protection | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector | Any EU personal data. |
| LGPD | BR | Data protection | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector | Any Brazilian personal data. |
| EU AI Act | EU (extra‑terr.) | AI regulation | Healthcare; LifeSci; SaaS | High‑risk AI or GPAI in EU. |
| SOC 2 | Global (US‑rooted) | SaaS trust | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS | Cloud/SaaS platforms. |
| NIST AI RMF | Global (US‑rooted) | AI risk | Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; SaaS; PublicSector | AI governance everywhere. |
| SoCI Act (health) | AU | Critical infra | Healthcare; SaaS; PublicSector | AU health critical infra. |
| ONC Cures / Info Blocking | US | Health IT | Healthcare; SaaS | EHR/health IT devs, HIN/HIE. |

Use semicolon‑separated industry tags so you can filter or use “contains” logic easily.

Industries list (consistent tags):

Healthcare
LifeSci (life sciences / MedTech / pharma)
Finance
Insurance
SaaS (horizontal cloud / platforms)
PublicSector

You can extend with others (e.g., Telecom, Energy) if needed.

2) How to filter by industry when scoping a tenant / product

A. Simple manual filter

In Excel/Sheets, turn the header row into a Table / filter row.
In the Industries column, use Text Filters → Contains… and type the tag, e.g. Healthcare.
The view will now show only frameworks relevant to Healthcare.
For multi‑industry tenants (e.g., health‑insurer SaaS), use custom filter: “contains Healthcare OR contains Insurance”.

B. Scoping helper on a “Tenant Scoping” tab

Create another tab with a small form:

| Field | Value |
| -- | -- |
| Tenant / Product | ACME Health AI Platform |
| Countries | US; CA; EU; BR |
| Industries | Healthcare; SaaS |

Then, in the Frameworks tab, add a helper column, e.g. InScope, with a formula like (Excel pseudo):

=IF(
  AND(
    OR(
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("Healthcare", [@Industries])),
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("SaaS", [@Industries]))
    ),
    OR(
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("US", [@Region])),
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("Global", [@Region])),
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("EU", [@Region])),
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("BR", [@Region])),
      ISNUMBER(SEARCH("CA", [@Region]))
    )
  ),
"Yes","No")

Now you can:

Filter InScope = "Yes" to see the frameworks that apply to that tenant/product.
Use that filtered list to decide which columns to turn on in your main control matrix (AI/ISMS/AIMS).

If you want, next step I can give you a minimal CSV/Excel skeleton (headers + a few rows) you can paste directly into a sheet as the starting “Framework Catalog” tab.

create a comprehensive CSV/Excel skeleton (headers + a few rows) you can paste directly into a sheet as the starting “Framework Catalog” tab.

Below is a comprehensive CSV/Excel skeleton with headers and populated rows for all ~40 frameworks. You can paste this directly into Excel/Sheets as your "Framework Catalog" tab.

Framework Catalog (CSV format – paste into Excel/Sheets)

Framework,Region(s),Domain,Industries,Typical Applicability,Parent Framework,Child/Extension Of,Status
ISO/IEC 27001,Global,Security / ISMS,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Baseline ISMS for any organization handling sensitive data or operating IT systems.,N/A,N/A,Core
ISO/IEC 42001,Global,AI Governance,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Organizations building/deploying/using material AI systems (LLMs; agents; ML models).,N/A,N/A,Core
SOC 1 (ISAE 3402),Global (US-centric),Financial Reporting Controls,"Finance; Insurance; SaaS",Service orgs whose controls are relevant to customers' ICFR (billing; claims; GL).,N/A,N/A,Core
SOC 2 (AICPA TSC),Global (US-centric),SaaS Trust (Security; Availability; etc.),"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",SaaS/cloud providers handling customer data; security/availability attestation.,N/A,N/A,Core
NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF),Global (US-rooted),Security Risk Management,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Broad security posture framework (Identify; Protect; Detect; Respond; Recover).,N/A,N/A,Core
NIST SP 800-53 / FedRAMP,Global (US gov),Detailed Security Controls,"PublicSector; SaaS; Finance; Healthcare",US gov/defense contractors; cloud providers serving federal agencies.,NIST CSF,Extension,Core
NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF),Global (US-rooted),AI Risk Management,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Any org using AI; voluntary but increasingly referenced in US healthcare/finance.,N/A,N/A,Core
GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation),EU/EEA (extraterritorial),Data Protection,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Any processing of personal data of EU/EEA residents.,N/A,N/A,Core
UK GDPR + Data Protection Act 2018,UK,Data Protection,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Processing personal data of UK residents post-Brexit.,GDPR,UK variant,Core
CCPA / CPRA (California Consumer Privacy Act / Privacy Rights Act),US (California),Consumer Privacy,"Healthcare; Finance; Insurance; SaaS",B2C services handling CA residents' personal information; opt-out rights.,N/A,N/A,Core
Other US State Privacy Laws (VA; CO; CT; UT; etc.),US (various states),Consumer Privacy,"Healthcare; Finance; Insurance; SaaS",Similar to CCPA/CPRA; often harmonized in practice.,CCPA/CPRA,State variants,Core
PIPEDA (Personal Information Protection & Electronic Documents Act),Canada,Data Protection,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Canadian private-sector personal data; federal + provincial supplements.,N/A,N/A,Core
LGPD (Lei Geral de Proteção de Dados),Brazil,Data Protection,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Brazilian personal data; GDPR-inspired with local nuances.,N/A,N/A,Core
Australian Privacy Act 1988 + Australian Privacy Principles (APPs),Australia,Data Protection,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Australian entities and some overseas processors handling Australian data.,N/A,N/A,Core
EU AI Act,EU (extraterritorial),AI Regulation,"Healthcare; LifeSci; SaaS",High-risk AI systems; GPAI; binding obligations for AI providers/deployers in EU.,N/A,N/A,Core
OECD AI Principles,Global,AI Ethics (non-binding),"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",High-level principles (fairness; transparency; accountability); reference framework.,N/A,N/A,Reference
EU Digital Services Act (DSA) / Digital Markets Act (DMA),EU,Platforms / Gatekeepers,SaaS,Online platforms/intermediaries and large gatekeepers; content/data obligations.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability & Accountability Act),US,Health Data,"Healthcare; SaaS",US covered entities (providers; payers) and business associates handling PHI/ePHI.,N/A,N/A,Core
HITECH Act,US,Health Data / EHR,"Healthcare; SaaS",Strengthens HIPAA; breach notification; EHR incentives; enforcement.,HIPAA,Extension,Core
FDA Medical Device & SaMD Regulations (incl. AI/ML guidance),US,Medical Devices / SaMD,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",AI/software used as medical device; clinical decision support; regulatory clearance.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
EU MDR / IVDR (Medical Device & In Vitro Diagnostic Regulations),EU,Medical Devices / Diagnostics,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",Clinical AI/software as devices in EU; CE marking; high-risk AI often also under MDR.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
UK MHRA Medical Device / SaMD Rules (incl. AI guidance),UK,Medical Devices / SaMD,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",Post-Brexit device regulation for clinical AI in UK.,EU MDR,UK variant,Conditional
Health Canada Medical Device & SaMD Regulations (incl. AI/ML),Canada,Medical Devices / SaMD,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",Clinical-grade AI used as device in Canada.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
TGA (Therapeutic Goods Administration) Medical Device / Software Regulation,Australia,Medical Devices / SaMD,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",Clinical AI/ML products in Australia.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
ANVISA Health Product & Software Regulation,Brazil,Medical Devices / Health Software,"LifeSci; Healthcare; SaaS",Medical devices and healthcare software in Brazil.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
SOX (Sarbanes-Oxley Act),US (influence global),Financial Reporting / ICFR,"Finance; Insurance; Healthcare; SaaS",Public companies; IT general controls for financial systems.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
GLBA (Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act),US,Financial Privacy,"Finance; Insurance",US financial institutions; privacy and safeguards for customer financial info.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
PCI DSS (Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard),Global,Payments / Cardholder Data,"Healthcare; Finance; Insurance; SaaS",Any org processing/storing/transmitting card data; industry standard.,N/A,N/A,Conditional
Basel / EBA / PRA / OSFI ICT Risk & Cloud Guidance,EU; UK; Canada,Banking / ICT Risk,"Finance; SaaS",Banks and critical fintech; cloud/third-party risk; operational resilience.,NIST CSF / ISO 27001,Banking sector guidance,Conditional
SOX-like / Corporate Reporting Regimes (e.g. Canada NI 52-109; EU/UK rules),Various,Corporate Controls,"Finance; Insurance; SaaS",Public companies outside US with similar financial-reporting controls.,SOX,Local variants,Conditional
ONC 21st Century Cures Act – Information Blocking & ONC Health IT Certification,US,Health IT / Interoperability,"Healthcare; SaaS",EHR/health IT developers; HIN/HIEs; providers; open API and patient access mandates.,HIPAA,Child / extension,Tier 2
ONC Health IT Certification Program,US,Health IT / EHR Certification,"Healthcare; SaaS",Certification criteria for EHR/health IT (tied to Cures Act; FHIR APIs).,ONC Cures,Child / extension,Tier 2
Australia Security of Critical Infrastructure (SoCI) Act 2018 – Healthcare & Medical,Australia,Critical Infrastructure,"Healthcare; SaaS; PublicSector",Designated critical health/medical infrastructure; risk mgmt; incident reporting.,Australian Privacy Act / ISO 27001,Child / extension,Tier 2
Brazil TISS / ANS Health Insurance Data Standards,Brazil,Health Insurance / Interop,"Healthcare; Insurance; SaaS",Standardized data exchange for private health insurance in Brazil.,LGPD,Child / extension,Tier 2
Brazil SUSEP Insurance Cyber Requirements,Brazil,Insurance Cyber Risk,"Insurance; SaaS",Cybersecurity and incident-reporting obligations for insurers in Brazil.,LGPD / ISO 27001,Child / extension,Tier 2
Brazil Internet Civil Framework + National Cyber Expectations,Brazil,Platforms / ISPs,"SaaS; PublicSector",General internet/platform governance; privacy; security for network operators.,LGPD,Child / extension,Tier 2
National Health-Sector Cyber Guidance (HHS/OCR; NHS DSPT; etc.),US; UK; Various,Healthcare Security,"Healthcare; SaaS; PublicSector",Sector-specific interpretations of HIPAA/GDPR/ISO 27001 for health IT.,HIPAA / GDPR / ISO 27001,Sector guidance,Tier 2
Insurance-Specific Cyber Regs (e.g. NAIC Model Law; SUSEP),US; Brazil; Various,Insurance Cyber,"Insurance; SaaS",Cybersecurity programs; incident reporting; third-party risk for insurers.,ISO 27001 / NIST CSF,Sector guidance,Tier 2
Telecom / E-Communications Security Regulations,Various,Telecom / Telehealth,"Healthcare; SaaS; PublicSector",Network integrity; availability; resilience for telehealth and IoT.,ISO 27001 / NIST CSF,Sector guidance,Tier 2
National AI Strategies / Ethics Codes (AU; BR; UK; etc.),Various,AI Policy (non-binding),"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; SaaS; PublicSector",National AI ethics/strategy documents; reference for governance.,OECD AI / ISO 42001,National guidance,Reference
Cybercrime / Computer Misuse Laws (CFAA; UK CMA; BR Cyber Laws),Various,Legal / Enforcement,"Healthcare; LifeSci; Finance; Insurance; SaaS; PublicSector",Criminal/civil laws for computer fraud; affects incident response and forensics.,N/A,Legal framework,Reference
HITRUST CSF (Health Information Trust Alliance Common Security Framework),Global (US-rooted),Harmonized Healthcare Security,"Healthcare; SaaS",Harmonizes HIPAA; ISO 27001; NIST CSF; certifiable control framework for US healthcare.,HIPAA / ISO 27001 / NIST CSF,Harmonized umbrella,Core

How to use this skeleton

Copy the CSV block above (from Framework,Region(s),... through the last row).
Paste into Excel/Sheets:
- In Excel: paste into cell A1; data should auto-parse into columns.
- In Sheets: same; or use Data → Split text to columns if needed.
Add one more column for tenant scoping: InScope (Yes/No dropdown or formula-driven).
Turn the range into a Table (Excel) or use Data → Create a filter (Sheets) so you can:
- Filter by Industries to see frameworks for Healthcare, LifeSci, Finance, etc.
- Filter by Region(s) to see frameworks for US, EU, BR, AU, CA, etc.
- Filter by Status (Core, Conditional, Tier 2, Reference) to prioritize.
Use this as your master catalog when scoping new tenants/products:
- Mark InScope = Yes for applicable frameworks.
- The filtered list drives which columns to activate in your main control matrix.

If you'd like, next step I can give you a second CSV skeleton for the Control Matrix tab (columns: Control Theme, Objective, ISO 27001, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST AI RMF, GDPR, HIPAA, LGPD, EU AI Act, HITRUST, Implementation, Evidence, Owner, Status) with 10–12 pre-filled example rows so you have a complete starter workbook.

What ISO 42001 certification is
Why organizations pursue it
High‑level requirements
Certification process at a glance
Example: hyperscalers and early adopters
Next‑step prompts you can use
6 key steps to ISO 42001 certification
Main benefits of ISO 42001
ISO 42001 vs ISO 27001
- Focus and evidence comparison
Companies with ISO 42001 certification
Deepening ISO 27001 (since you asked to expand)
SOC 1 vs SOC 2 (expanded)
Next: control & evidence plan tailored to a multi‑tenant agentic AI platform
1. AI risk assessment for healthcare multi‑tenant AI platform
2. Healthcare‑specific ISO 42001 AIMS controls (what’s special vs generic AI)
3. ISO 42001 Phase 2 operationalization checklist (Stage 2 prep)
4. Integrating ISO 42001 with existing ISO 27001 in SaaS
5. Examples of ISO 42001‑aligned agentic AI use cases in healthcare
1. ISO 27001 controls (deep dive on the six areas)
- 1.1 Access management
- 1.2 Logging and monitoring
- 1.3 Secure development (SDLC)
- 1.4 Change management
- 1.5 Vendor / supplier security
- 1.6 Business continuity & disaster recovery (BC/DR)
2. Common pitfalls in ISO 42001 risk assessment for multi‑tenant healthcare AI
3. Sample templates for healthcare AI clinical impact assessment
4. Data privacy in multi‑tenant AI under ISO 42001
5. Bias mitigation controls for healthcare AI models (ISO 42001‑aligned)
6. Verification and validation for healthcare AI under ISO 42001
- Matrix: ISO 27001 + ISO 42001 themes for healthcare multi‑tenant agentic AI
1. SOC 1 & SOC 2 controls and processes (healthcare SaaS context)
- SOC 1 vs SOC 2 focus
- SOC 2 control structure (what you implement)
- SOC 2 process (Type II, the one you care about)
2. Template: populating matrix with Annex A controls
3. Customizing the matrix for HIPAA in healthcare AI
4. Example filled matrix row: AI risk assessment control
5. Checklist to validate matrix evidence for ISO 42001 audit
6. Confluence macro pattern to render/filter the matrix
- Option A – Single page with filters
- Option B – Multi‑page + Page Properties
7. Stack‑specific refinement (GKE + Vertex AI + BigQuery + external LLMs)
1. Mapping NIST AI RMF to ISO 42001 (for the matrix)
2. Key differences: EU AI Act vs NIST AI RMF (for matrix design)
3. HIPAA requirements for AI systems (how to reflect in the matrix)
4. Including HITRUST CSF in the matrix
5. How EU AI Act classifies healthcare AI risks (what to mark as “high‑risk”)
1. Compact crosswalk snippet (5 key rows)
2. How GDPR intersects with the EU AI Act for high‑risk AI
3. Mapping GDPR data protection to ISO 42001 AIMS
4. HIPAA compliance for AI handling PHI
5. CPRA updates vs original CCPA (short for your matrix)
6. Compare GDPR lawful basis vs CCPA/CPRA consent mechanisms
1. Extended crosswalk (add 2 rows: Bias & fairness, Model lifecycle & V &V)
2. Expand matrix to include GDPR and ISO 27001 columns
3. Full crosswalk for AI risk categories under EU AI Act (how to plug into matrix)
4. Implementing AI risk treatment in healthcare from this crosswalk
5. Adding NIST AI RMF 2.0 updates
6. Sample checklist for a HITRUST AI governance audit using these mappings
Global / cross‑sector (applies in multiple regions)
Data protection & privacy – major jurisdictions
AI‑specific and digital‑platform regulation
Healthcare / life sciences – US, Canada, EU, UK, Australia, Brazil
Financial services / corporate – US, Canada, EU, UK, Australia, Brazil
1. Matrix header + categorized 30 frameworks
2. HIPAA vs GDPR vs LGPD – key data protection requirements
3. Crosswalk matrix for top 10 frameworks (sketch)
4. Which frameworks apply to AI in healthcare (US, EU, Brazil)
5. Implementation roadmap: SOX, HIPAA, PIPEDA (very high level)
6. Prioritizing frameworks by industry (AU, UK, CA)
1. Detailed mapping examples: Top 5 frameworks → ISO 42001
- 1.1 ISO 27001 → ISO 42001
- 1.2 SOC 2 (TSC) → ISO 42001
- 1.3 NIST AI RMF → ISO 42001
- 1.4 GDPR → ISO 42001
- 1.5 EU AI Act → ISO 42001
2. Top 10 most critical frameworks for AI in healthcare (prioritized list)
3. Prioritized list for global AI companies (any sector)
4. Implementing the matrix as an Excel template for compliance scoping
- Structure (tabs)
- Formulas and automation
- Example scoping workflow
5. Cross‑mappings: GDPR / CCPA / LGPD → AIMS
1. 5–10 second‑tier frameworks (with where they sit)
2. How to attach as “child mappings” in your matrix
- A. Add a single “Regional / child frameworks” column
- B. Use a separate “child mapping” tab keyed by framework
- C. In code / automation terms
1) Pattern for “full matrix with child mappings” (all ~40)
- A. Parent framework matrix (your existing 30)
- B. Child mapping table (adds the 5–10 “second tier”)
2) How to prioritize second‑tier frameworks for healthcare AI
3) Implementation checklist – ONC Cures Act (information blocking)
- Governance & scoping
- Policies & contracts
- Technical capabilities
- Exceptions & workflows
- Training & awareness
- Monitoring & audit
4) Mapping HIPAA to Australian critical‑infrastructure health rules (SoCI + AU health)
5) Penalties for 21st Century Cures Act information‑blocking violations
1. Matrix: Frameworks → Industries
1) Framework catalog with “Industries” column (Excel/Sheets)
2) How to filter by industry when scoping a tenant / product
- A. Simple manual filter
- B. Scoping helper on a “Tenant Scoping” tab
Framework Catalog (CSV format – paste into Excel/Sheets)
How to use this skeleton

What ISO 42001 certification is​

Why organizations pursue it​

High‑level requirements​

Certification process at a glance​

Example: hyperscalers and early adopters​

Next‑step prompts you can use​

“Design an ISO/IEC 42001‑aligned AIMS architecture for a multi‑tenant, agentic AI SaaS platform in healthcare, including roles, core processes, and control families, assuming ISO 27001 is already in place.”

6 key steps to ISO 42001 certification​

Main benefits of ISO 42001​

ISO 42001 vs ISO 27001​

Focus and evidence comparison​

Companies with ISO 42001 certification​

Deepening ISO 27001 (since you asked to expand)​

SOC 1 vs SOC 2 (expanded)​

Next: control & evidence plan tailored to a multi‑tenant agentic AI platform​

How to conduct AI risk assessment for healthcare multi-tenant AI platform

1. AI risk assessment for healthcare multi‑tenant AI platform​

2. Healthcare‑specific ISO 42001 AIMS controls (what’s special vs generic AI)​

3. ISO 42001 Phase 2 operationalization checklist (Stage 2 prep)​

4. Integrating ISO 42001 with existing ISO 27001 in SaaS​

5. Examples of ISO 42001‑aligned agentic AI use cases in healthcare​

EXPAND on ISO 27001 controls for: access management, logging, secure development, change management, vendor security, BC/DR. Common pitfalls in ISO 42001 risk assessment for multi-tenant healthcare AI

1. ISO 27001 controls (deep dive on the six areas)​

1.1 Access management​

1.2 Logging and monitoring​

1.3 Secure development (SDLC)​

1.4 Change management​

1.5 Vendor / supplier security​

1.6 Business continuity & disaster recovery (BC/DR)​

2. Common pitfalls in ISO 42001 risk assessment for multi‑tenant healthcare AI​

3. Sample templates for healthcare AI clinical impact assessment​

4. Data privacy in multi‑tenant AI under ISO 42001​

5. Bias mitigation controls for healthcare AI models (ISO 42001‑aligned)​

6. Verification and validation for healthcare AI under ISO 42001​

condense this into a matrix (rows: ISO 27001/42001 themes; cols: “control objective”, “healthcare multi‑tenant AI implementation”, “example evidence”) that you can plug directly into your Confluence/RFCs and use as your working control register.

Matrix: ISO 27001 + ISO 42001 themes for healthcare multi‑tenant agentic AI​

1. SOC 1 & SOC 2 controls and processes (healthcare SaaS context)​

SOC 1 vs SOC 2 focus​

SOC 2 control structure (what you implement)​

SOC 2 process (Type II, the one you care about)​

2. Template: populating matrix with Annex A controls​

3. Customizing the matrix for HIPAA in healthcare AI​

4. Example filled matrix row: AI risk assessment control​

5. Checklist to validate matrix evidence for ISO 42001 audit​

6. Confluence macro pattern to render/filter the matrix​

Option A – Single page with filters​

Option B – Multi‑page + Page Properties​

7. Stack‑specific refinement (GKE + Vertex AI + BigQuery + external LLMs)​