03 — The Standards Map

version v0.1 · 9 September 2026

← 02 The model [link removed: 02__the-model.md:] · Next → 04 The worked example [link removed: 04__the-worked-example.md:]

How to read this file

Two columns matter more than the rest: what state the corpus is in, and who says so.

Rows marked in the estate were read from that vault's or site's own published page on 9 September 2026 and the figures are quoted from it. Rows marked candidate are named from general knowledge and nothing about their structure has been checked — they are a work list, not an inventory, and treating them as one would be the exact failure this estate keeps a claim ledger to prevent.

What already exists as a graph, in this estate

Read that table as the answer to "can this be done". Two regulations and one standard are already graphs with byte-level provenance. The method is proven; what is missing is breadth and an anchor.

AIUC-1's thirteen, read from its own graph

Blocker S1 is closed. The pack said this was the cheapest thing to check and it was: the crosswalk targets are in graph/edges.json of vault 2wzct4k7, opened with its published read key. 1,126 crosswalks across exactly thirteen frameworks, counted from the edges themselves:

One row needs its label read carefully. framework:owasp-top-10 is labelled "OWASP Top 10", which reads as the web application list. Its members are not: they are LLM01:25 - Prompt Injection through LLM10:25 - Unbounded Consumption — the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications (2025). Checked by listing the ten in_framework members rather than trusting the label, which is the only reason the AI-specific finding below survives. A shorthand label that collides with a different, better-known standard is the kind of thing an anchor node exists to disambiguate, and it is worth reporting upstream rather than silently working around.

Two findings, and the second is the important one.

One: the coverage is AI-specific, not general security

Not one general security control set is in that list. No NIST CSF, no NIST SP 800-53, no ISO/IEC 27001 or 27002, no SOC 2, no CIS Controls, no PCI DSS, no HIPAA, no FedRAMP.

That is not a gap in AIUC-1 — it is an agent standard and it crosswalks to the AI corpus, which is the right scope for it. But it means the general-security half of the map is genuinely absent from this estate, and anyone assuming "AIUC-1 covers the crosswalks" would be wrong about exactly the frameworks most enterprises are actually assessed against.

Two: four of the thirteen are laws, and three are sub-national US laws

eu-ai-act, co-ai-act, ca-sb-53, nyc-ll-144.

Colorado. California. New York City. Those are not abstractions — they are jurisdictions with UnGovr entity slugs: us/co, us/ca, us/ny/…. A crosswalk from an AIUC-1 control to the Colorado AI Act currently floats free of any statement about who in Colorado it binds.

This is the join, and it is already half-built by somebody else. AIUC-1 supplies the control → law edge. UnGovr supplies the body → jurisdiction anchor. Nobody has connected them, and the connection is one edge.

And they already use anchor nodes

The crosswalk edges do not point at frameworks. They point at anchor: nodes — anchor:co-ai-act:6-1-1702-developer-duties — reached by an anchors_to edge, of which there are 489.

So the anchor pattern is established in this estate and this pack is not proposing it. What it proposes is a different axis of anchor: theirs anchor provisions across standards; ours would anchor obligations to the body and the place. The two compose; neither replaces the other. File 01 [link removed: 01__the-anchor-node-thesis.md:] is right about the principle and was wrong to imply the estate had not applied it.

The candidate list — named, not inventoried

Nothing in this table has been checked. No structure, no licence, no machine-readable source, no count. Every cell would start unevidenced.

The licence question comes before the parse, every time. This vault learned that the expensive way: UnGovr's AI-law corpus reads as part of a CC BY 4.0 API and carries its own licence saying "No license is conveyed by receipt of this file." Several standards bodies charge for the text. A graph of ids, structure and crosswalks without the text is still useful — but that has to be a decision made before the work.

What the anchor changes, per family

The point of the map is not the list. It is what a jurisdiction anchor does to it:

Only the first row works today. The other four are what the anchor is for.

The order of work, and it is not the obvious one

1. The anchors. UnGovr entity + jurisdiction, with the governed_by edge marked inferred

   and its 96.6% / 20.5% measured. This vault has already done this for one jurisdiction.

2. One instrument, already solved. The EU AI Act current text — per-provision ids and hashes

   exist, so this is a join and not a parse. Do not re-parse what RiskMandate has parsed.

3. One standard, already graphed. AIUC-1. Do not re-transcribe it; fork it the way the

   conformance layer forked it, byte for byte.

4. One crosswalk edge, std:control --addresses--> sg:obligation, drawn once, by hand,

   for one control, and marked inferred.

5. Only then widen — and widening means another anchor, not another standard.

A crosswalk built before step 1 is a mapping between two vocabularies with nothing underneath it. That is the failure mode thesis sentence 5 names, and it is why this order is strict.

What would make this file wrong

This document is released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence (CC BY 4.0).