Compliance Management

The platform includes frameworks that aren't relevant to your organisation creating noise in compliance dashboards. Australian organisations don't need US-specific frameworks cluttering their compliance view. You can't filter out frameworks permanently so they keep appearing in reports and dashboards. Team members waste time reviewing controls from irrelevant frameworks.

You can see individual control status but can't get aggregate view of compliance gaps. Remediation efforts aren't prioritised because you don't know which gaps matter most. Non-compliant controls are documented but not tracked systematically for remediation. You can't answer "how many controls do we still need to implement" without manual counting.

Evidence of control implementation is scattered across wikis, SharePoint, Jira, Confluence and local files. When auditors ask for evidence, you spend days hunting through systems compiling links. Evidence exists but isn't linked to the controls it supports. You can't quickly show what evidence demonstrates which control compliance.

You're assessing the same control concept multiple times because each framework words it differently. EU AI Act Article 15 is essentially NIST AI RMF GOVERN-1 is essentially ISO 42001 clause 5.2, but you're treating them as separate requirements. Work is duplicated across frameworks with no recognition of equivalency.

Compliance status is opinion-based without systematic assessment. You claim controls are implemented, but can't prove it with evidence or assessment documentation. Status is binary (compliant or not) without capturing partial implementation. Assessment age isn't tracked so you're reporting three-year-old compliance status as current.

You're building control lists from scratch by reading framework documentation and extracting requirements manually. Control references are incomplete or outdated as frameworks evolve. You're uncertain whether your control list covers all framework requirements or misses critical controls.