Close the Gap, Gain the Edge

A platform that automates gap analysis, compliance checks, and requirement alignment across industries.

Draft Document

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX

Reference Criteria

Click to upload

or drag and drop

PDF, DOCX

How to Use Riftur in 4 Steps

Examples of How Real Teams Use Riftur

Government Proposals

Use Riftur across every stage of proposal development, from early drafts to final submission, to ensure your content fully meets solicitation requirements and closes gaps before evaluation. Compare draft sections against instructions (Section L), evaluation criteria (Section M), compliance matrices, statements of work, and more to surface missing elements and strengthen your proposal. Riftur supports a wide range of government documents, including but not limited to white papers, full proposals, RFP/RFQ responses, solicitations, technical volumes, management volumes, and capability statements.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

The comparison maps the white_paper.pdf draft against the explicit structural, content, and formatting requirements defined in WPReqs.pdf for the Provably Secure System Assessment Event White Paper. Each requirement area is treated as a discrete evaluation dimension. The analysis identifies fully satisfied requirements, partial coverage, and compliance gaps, distinguishing mandatory content elements from mandatory formatting constraints. Risks focus on evaluability, compliance rejection, and ambiguity around implicit assumptions. Resulting tables resemble standard proposal compliance matrices and risk registers to support targeted remediation prior to submission.

White Paper Requirement Compliance Matrix

Requirement Area	Reference Criteria (WPReqs.pdf)	Draft Coverage (white_paper.pdf)	Coverage Status
Title Page – Required Fields	Title page must include required fields and does not count toward page total.	Draft includes Company, title, date, POC; missing email, phone, address; unclear title/body separation.	Partially Covered
Executive Summary – Solution Description	Provide detailed description and applicability.	Draft describes PhantomShift architecture, functionality, and applicability.	Covered
Executive Summary – Capability Desirements	Define capability desirements addressed.	Draft describes desirements: reduced manual effort, cognitive load, risk awareness, efficiency.	Covered
Executive Summary – Current Deployments	Describe any current deployments in government or commercial systems.	Draft references research partnerships but no explicit production deployments.	Partially Covered
Technology Concept – Unique Aspects	Describe unique aspects of solution.	LLM + Unix shell integration, Streamlit UI, Python engine, RAG knowledge base, API modularity.	Covered
Technology Concept – Technical Specifications	Provide detailed technical specifications.	High-level architecture provided; missing low-level specs.	Partially Covered
Technology Concept – Relation to Known/Unknown Desirements	Explain relation to known/unknown desirements.	Draft clearly explains support for known and emerging needs.	Covered
Approach – Solving Focus Area	Describe how solution solves designated Focus Area.	Draft explains penetration testing workflow support but does not restate Focus Area text.	Covered
Approach – Past/Current Efforts	Identify past/current efforts showing results.	Draft references Company’s tools, partnerships, training labs.	Covered
ROM Cost – Unit Cost Range	Provide ROM cost for 1–6 month assessments.	$90k–$225k provided.	Covered
ROM Cost – Variables Affecting Cost	List variables influencing cost.	Draft lists duration, users, environment, customizations, hardening, integrations.	Covered
ROM Cost – Schedule / Lead Time	Provide minimum delivery lead time.	Four-week lead time stated.	Covered
ROM Cost – Assumptions	Include assumptions used in ROM.	Draft lists infrastructure, no classified data, isolated environments, safe use guidelines.	Covered
Page Limit Compliance	Submission must not exceed 3 pages; formatting constraints apply.	Draft claims compliance but unverifiable from excerpt.	Conditionally Covered
Structure / Section Headings	White Paper must include required sections.	Draft uses correct section headings (1.1–1.4 plus 1.5).	Covered
Extra Content Beyond Stated Areas	Excess content must not obscure required sections.	Section 1.5 included but not obstructive.	Minor Deviation

Detailed Content Gap & Enhancement Analysis

Requirement Element	Reference Expectation (WPReqs.pdf)	Observed Draft Treatment (white_paper.pdf)	Gap / Enhancement Need
Contact Information Completeness	Title page must include Company Name, Title, Date, POC, Email, Phone, Address.	Draft missing email, phone, address; unclear legal company name.	Add POC contact details and explicit legal company name.
Explicit “Current Deployment” Narrative	Describe current deployments supporting gov/commercial systems.	Draft references research partners but unclear deployment maturity.	Clarify deployment stage: research, pilot, or production.
Technical Depth vs Conceptual Description	Technology Concept should include detailed specifications.	Draft provides architecture-level detail only.	Add concrete specs: OS support, hosting model, security controls, data flow.
Linkage to “Provably Secure System” Theme	Connect solution to assurance/provable security aspects.	Draft focuses on offensive testing efficiency, not assurance ties.	Add linkage: evidence generation, repeatability, assurance frameworks.
Unknown Capability Desirements – Explicit Treatment	Discuss relation to unknown emerging needs.	Draft mentions modularity but remains high-level.	Add concrete examples of rapid incorporation of new desirements.
Focus Area Traceability	Map solution to specific Focus Area language.	Draft describes solution generically; no explicit mapping.	Map key features to sponsor-provided Focus Area terminology.
ROM Cost Structure Transparency	Explain variables and scaling.	Draft lists variables but no example scenarios.	Add brief example pricing scenarios.
Formatting Section (1.5) Necessity	Formatting compliance does not require narrative section.	Draft includes 1.5 describing compliance.	Remove or compress content; rely on visual formatting instead.
Title Page vs Body Separation	Title page must be distinct and not counted in page limit.	Excerpt intermixes title block and body content.	Ensure separate title page with clear page break.

Risk and Compliance Impact Assessment

Risk Area	Cause	Likelihood	Impact on Evaluation	Overall Risk	Suggested Mitigation
Incomplete Contact Information	Missing email/phone/address for POC.	Medium	Minor non-compliance; reviewer friction.	Low–Medium	Add complete POC contact info on title page.
Ambiguity About Deployment Maturity	Draft unclear whether PhantomShift is production-deployed.	Medium	Confusion about readiness may lower scoring.	Medium	State deployment level clearly with counts or explicit 'none'.
Insufficient Technical Detail	Conceptual description dominates; lacks concrete specs.	Medium	Technical evaluators may downgrade feasibility.	Medium–High	Add key technical parameters (OS, auth model, logging, integration).
Weak Tie to 'Provably Secure' Theme	Draft lacks explicit assurance linkage.	Medium	Perceived misalignment with event theme.	Medium–High	Add evidence-based security and assurance narrative.
Potential Page Limit Misinterpretation	Actual formatted length unknown; Section 1.5 uses space.	Unknown	Non-compliance risk if document exceeds 3 pages.	High	Verify PDF layout; remove non-essential text.
Unclear Focus Area Mapping	No explicit mapping to sponsor’s Focus Area language.	Medium	Reviewers must infer alignment; may reduce responsiveness score.	Medium	Add explicit bullet-level mapping.
Over-emphasis on Self-Reported Compliance	Section 1.5 is defensive or filler.	Low	Minor negative perception.	Low	Streamline/remove Section 1.5.

Audits & Regulatory Reviews

Test documentation against published standards to ensure nothing gets flagged late.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

The comparison maps explicit requirements from requirements.pdf to observable behaviors in user_manager_code.py, focusing on GDPR compliance, ISO/IEC 27001 & SOC 2 security controls, software development quality practices, and industry-specific FinTech/PCI-DSS obligations. The analysis evaluates how personal and sensitive data is handled, how files and resources are managed, the presence of unsafe execution functions, and the adequacy of logging and audit trails. Each requirement is classified as compliant, partially compliant, or non-compliant, with risk-based findings to support remediation planning.

Requirement-to-Code Compliance Mapping

Requirement Area	Specific Requirement (requirements.pdf)	Relevant Code in user_manager_code.py	Compliance Status
GDPR Compliance	No plaintext storage of personal/sensitive user data.	create_user_account stores all fields in plaintext; process_credit_card prints raw card_number; log_event writes raw strings.	Non-compliant
GDPR Compliance	Passwords and credit card data must be encrypted.	Passwords stored unencrypted; credit card number never encrypted.	Non-compliant
GDPR Compliance	Consent and data minimisation requirements.	No consent handling; full personal data collected and logged or exposed; no minimisation controls.	Non-compliant
ISO/IEC 27001 & SOC 2	Secure file handling using context managers.	All file opens use open() without context managers, including users.json, config.txt, features.cfg, log.txt.	Non-compliant
ISO/IEC 27001 & SOC 2	No use of unsafe functions (eval/exec).	authenticate_user returns eval(input_data).	Non-compliant
ISO/IEC 27001 & SOC 2	Logging key actions and sensitive operations.	log_event exists but is not called from core security operations.	Partially compliant
Software Development Quality	Each function must include docstrings.	No functions contain docstrings.	Non-compliant
Software Development Quality	Avoid magic numbers; use named constants.	calculate_discount uses hardcoded 0.85; file names repeated inline.	Non-compliant
Software Development Quality	Configuration should not be written without access controls.	update_config and admin_toggle_feature modify config files with no authentication/authorization.	Non-compliant
Industry-Specific (FinTech)	Credit card data must never be logged.	process_credit_card prints the full card number.	Non-compliant
Industry-Specific (FinTech)	Financial processing must follow PCI-DSS principles.	No masking, tokenization, access controls, secure transmission, or storage mechanisms.	Non-compliant
Industry-Specific (FinTech)	Identity operations must have audit trails.	No audit logging for account creation, authentication, or deletion.	Non-compliant

Personal & Sensitive Data Handling Analysis

Data Element	Where Used in user_manager_code.py	Protection Mechanism	Issues vs GDPR & Security Requirements
Username	Stored in users.json via create_user_account.	None (plaintext storage).	Violates data protection principles; no access control, retention policy, or pseudonymisation.
Password	Stored directly in users.json via create_user_account.	None (no hashing, salting, or encryption).	Major GDPR and security violation; extremely high risk.
Email	Stored in users.json; validated only via regex.	No encryption or minimisation.	Personal data stored in plaintext with no consent or retention controls.
Credit Card Number	Printed in process_credit_card(card_number).	None.	Severe PCI-DSS violation: sensitive data logged in full.
User ID	Exposed in generate_report.	None.	Potential overexposure; no minimisation or access controls described.
Configuration / Flags	Written to config.txt and features.cfg.	No integrity, access control, or secure handling.	Violates configuration-security requirements; potentially enables unsafe states.

File Handling & Resource Management vs ISO/IEC 27001 / SOC 2

File / Resource	Operation	Current Implementation	Compliance Assessment
users.json	Write (create_user_account)	open() without context manager; overwrites file; no error handling.	Non-compliant; risk of corruption and data loss.
users.json	Read/Modify/Delete (remove_user_account)	open() without context manager; no error handling or locking.	Non-compliant; unsafe for multi-access environments.
config.txt	Write (update_config)	Writes debug=True without access control or context manager.	Non-compliant; configuration integrity not protected.
features.cfg	Write (admin_toggle_feature)	Writes feature=on/off with no authorization.	Non-compliant; security posture can be changed silently.
log.txt	Append (log_event)	open() without context manager; writes raw unsanitized data.	Partially compliant; facility exists but insecure and unused in key flows.

Unsafe Functions & Execution Security

Aspect	Code Reference	Risk Description	Alignment with Requirements
Use of eval()	authenticate_user(input_data)	Enables arbitrary code execution and complete system compromise.	Critical non-compliance; eval explicitly prohibited.
Authentication Logic	authenticate_user	No secure credential checking; arbitrary input executes code.	Non-compliant with all authentication standards.
Lack of Input Validation	Multiple functions	No sanitisation or validation of sensitive inputs.	Increases ISO/SOC security risk; implicit non-compliance.

Logging, Audit Trails & Monitoring

Operation Type	Expected Logging per requirements.pdf	Actual Implementation	Gap / Risk
Account Creation	Audit trail required for identity operations.	Only prints to stdout; no persistent log entry.	Cannot track account creation; non-compliant.
Authentication	Audit access attempts.	No logging at all; eval suppresses structured auth flow.	No ability to detect abuse or anomalies.
Account Removal	Audit deletion of identities.	Silent removal; no logging.	Critical identity modification left untracked.
Financial Data Processing	Log sensitive operations without exposing sensitive values.	Prints raw credit card number.	Severe PCI-DSS violation; leaks PAN.
Configuration Changes	Log when security-relevant flags change.	Silent writes to config.txt and features.cfg.	Compromises forensic traceability.
Generic Logging	Use centralized, structured logging.	log_event exists but is not integrated with operations.	Partially compliant; insufficient for security standards.

Software Quality & Maintainability Requirements

Quality Criterion	Observation in user_manager_code.py	Compliance Status	Notes
Function Docstrings	No docstrings on any function.	Non-compliant	Hinders review, maintainability, and audit preparation.
Magic Numbers	Hardcoded discount 0.85; inline file paths.	Non-compliant	Should use named constants or config objects.
Configuration Management	Runtime writes to config files.	Non-compliant	Violates access control requirements; improper separation of duties.
Dead / Dummy Code	dummy_function_one, dummy_function_two	Not explicitly required but poor practice	Adds noise and potential security review distraction.

Risk & Remediation Prioritisation

Issue	Related Requirement	Risk Level	Impact Summary	Recommended Remediation
Plaintext password & personal data storage	GDPR; Encryption; ISO/SOC secure storage	Critical	Full compromise of user accounts and personal data.	Hash passwords (bcrypt/argon2), encrypt storage, add access controls.
Logging full credit card number	PCI-DSS; FinTech-specific rules	Critical	Leaked PAN causes major compliance and financial liability.	Remove logging; mask PAN; implement secure financial data handling.
Use of eval in authentication	ISO/SOC unsafe functions	Critical	Enables RCE and trivial account compromise.	Remove eval; implement proper credential verification.
Lack of audit trails	Industry audit requirements; ISO/SOC logging	High	No traceability for critical identity and financial operations.	Integrate structured logging with all sensitive operations.
Insecure file handling	ISO/SOC secure resource handling	Medium	Corruption, race conditions, and lost audit data.	Use context managers, add error handling, consider locking.
Configuration writes without access controls	Software quality; operational security	High	Attackers may toggle unsafe modes or features.	Require authentication/authorization; externalize config management.
Missing docstrings & hardcoded constants	Software quality standards	Low–Medium	Reduces clarity and maintainability.	Add docstrings; refactor constants into named configuration.

M&A Due Diligence

Align technical or process documentation between organizations, flagging critical differences that need harmonization.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

The comparison maps Company B’s due diligence checklist to the capabilities and practices described in Company_A_Tech_Overview_Extended.pdf. Each checklist dimension—including infrastructure, data governance, application architecture, DevSecOps, observability, software quality, compliance, and intellectual property—is evaluated for explicit alignment, partial coverage, or gaps. Concrete tooling evidence (e.g., Terraform, EKS, Prometheus, Grafana, Snyk, Secrets Manager) is tied to the corresponding checklist controls. Missing or unspecified items (e.g., data retention policies, API versioning, distributed tracing, test coverage, ADRs, IP ownership documentation) are marked as gaps. The tables follow standard technical due diligence mapping and risk assessment patterns for M&A transactions.

Requirement Coverage Mapping – Company_B_Due_Diligence_Checklist_Extended.pdf vs Company_A_Tech_Overview_Extended.pdf

Checklist Section	Requirement	Reference Criteria (Checklist)	Draft Evidence (Company A Overview)	Coverage Status	Notes
Infrastructure Requirements	Infrastructure as Code (IaC) in version control	All infra must be defined as IaC and stored in version-controlled repos.	Terraform used; CI/CD managed through GitHub Actions.	Covered	Terraform + Git implies IaC with version control.
Infrastructure Requirements	Resource naming, tagging, regional compliance	Cloud resources should follow naming/tagging standards and regional compliance rules.	Not mentioned.	Gap	No naming/tagging strategy or region compliance documentation.
Infrastructure Requirements	Horizontal scalability for production	Infra must support horizontal scaling and HA.	Cloud-native microservices on AWS (ECS, EKS, Kafka, S3).	Partially Covered	Architecture suggests scalability, not explicitly documented.
Data Management Standards	Encryption at rest and in transit using AES-256 or stronger	AES-256 at rest; TLS ≥1.2 in transit.	AES-256 at rest; TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3 references.	Covered (with minor inconsistency)	TLS version references differ; requires clarification.
Data Management Standards	GDPR/CCPA storage & retention policies	Retention/deletion processes must comply with GDPR/CCPA.	Not mentioned.	Gap	No data lifecycle management details.
Data Management Standards	Data lineage & audit trails	Lineage and provenance must be automated.	Snapshots and logs; Kafka/Snowflake events.	Partially Covered	Lineage not explicitly documented.
Data Management Standards	PII/sensitive data classification & ISO 27001 handling	Classification schema and handling rules required.	ISO 27001 compliance claimed; PII/PHI redaction in logs.	Partially Covered	Detailed classification scheme not described.
Application Architecture Alignment	Containerized microservices on Kubernetes	Microservices should run on Kubernetes.	EKS + Helm deployments.	Covered	Implies Docker-based containerization.
Application Architecture Alignment	REST/gRPC APIs with versioning & health checks	Services must expose versioned REST/gRPC APIs with health endpoints.	REST and gRPC used; no versioning or health checks mentioned.	Partially Covered	Missing explicit API versioning and health endpoints.
Application Architecture Alignment	Legacy monolith roadmap	Monoliths must have a migration/refactoring plan.	Not mentioned.	Gap / N/A	If monolith exists, roadmap missing; if none, should be stated.
DevSecOps Practices	Automated security scans, static analysis, dependency checks	CI/CD must include automated security and code analysis.	Nightly Snyk scans; ECR signing.	Partially Covered	Static analysis, dependency checks beyond Snyk not stated.
DevSecOps Practices	Secure storage of secrets (vault)	Secrets must not be hardcoded.	AWS Secrets Manager used.	Covered	Meets vault requirement.
DevSecOps Practices	Deployment/rollback/approval audit logs	Audit logs of deployments required.	Not mentioned.	Gap	CI/CD auditability unclear.
Logging, Monitoring, Observability	Centralized structured JSON logging	Centralized logging using JSON format required.	Fluentd → CloudWatch/Splunk; JSON logs with severity.	Covered	Meets structured logging requirement.
Logging, Monitoring, Observability	Monitoring of uptime, errors, CPU/memory, alerts	Full observability and threshold alerts required.	Prometheus, Grafana, AlertManager, PagerDuty routing.	Partially Covered	Metrics implied but not explicitly listing CPU/memory/uptime.
Logging, Monitoring, Observability	Distributed tracing (OpenTelemetry)	Tracing must correlate service-to-service calls.	Not mentioned.	Gap	No tracing system (OTel/Jaeger/Zipkin).
Software Quality Metrics	≥80% unit test coverage for critical services	Coverage minimum must be met.	Not mentioned.	Gap	No test coverage detail.
Software Quality Metrics	Automated regression testing	Regression suite must run each major commit.	Not mentioned.	Gap	Testing pipeline unclear.
Software Quality Metrics	Linting/style compliance	Code must meet standards (PEP8/etc.).	Not mentioned.	Gap	No quality gates described.
Security Compliance and Certification	ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II, GDPR alignment	Must show alignment with all three.	ISO 27001 + SOC2 Type II claimed; GDPR not mentioned.	Partially Covered	GDPR compliance unclear.
Security Compliance and Certification	Quarterly security policy review	Policies must be reviewed quarterly.	Not mentioned.	Gap	Governance cadence unknown.
Security Compliance and Certification	Annual third-party penetration tests w/ remediation tracking	Annual third-party tests and tracked remediation required.	Quarterly pen tests, disclosure program.	Partially Covered	Pen-test remediation tracking not stated.
IP & Documentation	Clear code license ownership & contributor agreements	IP chain-of-title required.	Not mentioned.	Gap	Missing IP documentation.
IP & Documentation	Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)	Critical architecture decisions must be documented.	Not mentioned.	Gap	ADRs absent.
IP & Documentation	Onboarding, API docs, architecture diagrams	Docs must be current and complete.	Confluence docs updated July 2025; IR policies documented.	Partially Covered	API docs, onboarding guides, diagrams not explicitly mentioned.

Thematic Alignment Summary

Category	Overall Alignment	Evidence	Key Gaps
Infrastructure & Cloud Operations	Moderate to Strong	EKS, ECS Fargate, Terraform, GitHub Actions, Kafka, S3, DynamoDB, Redshift.	No naming/tagging standards; no explicit HA/auto-scaling statements.
Data Management & Governance	Moderate	AES-256, TLS, snapshots, ETL with Airflow, Great Expectations.	Missing GDPR/CCPA retention policies; unclear lineage; no classification schema.
Application Architecture	Strong	Microservices on EKS, Helm, REST/gRPC, Kong, mTLS.	No API versioning or health checks; no monolith roadmap.
DevSecOps & CI/CD	Moderate	Terraform, GitHub Actions, Snyk, ECR signing, canary deployments.	No static analysis, dependency scanning details, or deployment audit logs.
Logging, Monitoring, Observability	Strong (logging/monitoring); Weak (tracing)	Fluentd, CloudWatch, Splunk, Prometheus, Grafana, PagerDuty.	No distributed tracing.
Software Quality & Testing	Weak	No references to test coverage or regression testing.	No coverage metrics, regression suite, or linting standards.
Security & Compliance	Moderate to Strong	SOC2 Type II, ISO27001, KMS, IAM, CrowdStrike, quarterly pen tests.	No GDPR mention, missing policy review cadence, unclear pen-test remediation.
IP & Documentation	Weak to Moderate	Confluence documentation updated July 2025.	No IP ownership docs, contributor agreements, ADRs, API docs, diagrams.

Gap Detail and Risk Assessment

Gap Area	Checklist Requirement	Observed Status	Risk Level	Impact on M&A / Integration	Suggested Remediation
Cloud Governance (Tagging & Regions)	Naming/tagging compliance for cloud resources.	Not mentioned.	Medium	Difficult cost allocation and region compliance verification.	Define tagging/naming standards and region compliance mapping.
High Availability & Horizontal Scalability	Infra must explicitly support HA and horizontal scaling.	Architecture implies scaling; not documented.	Medium	Unclear production resilience for acquirer.	Document HA patterns (multi-AZ, autoscaling, replicas, SLAs).
GDPR/CCPA Retention & Rights	Retention, deletion, DSAR handling required.	Not mentioned.	High	Regulatory exposure and integration delays.	Publish retention/deletion policies and DSAR workflows.
Data Lineage & Provenance	Automated lineage tracking required.	Snapshots and logs only.	Medium	Hard to trace data transformations or issues.	Implement lineage tooling (Glue, Airflow metadata, data catalog).
PII Classification	Classification per ISO 27001 required.	Redaction exists; no formal classification scheme.	Medium	Inconsistent handling of sensitive data.	Define classification tiers and enforcement rules.
API Versioning & Health Checks	APIs must expose versioning + health endpoints.	REST/gRPC only mentioned.	Medium	Integration and maintainability risk.	Document versioning strategy and health/readiness endpoints.
Static Analysis & Dependency Checks	SAST and dependency scans required.	Only Snyk vulnerability scans mentioned.	Medium	Potential undetected code-level vulnerabilities.	Add SAST + full dependency scanning (CodeQL, SonarQube).
Deployment/Approval Audit Logs	Audit logs for deployments and rollbacks required.	Not mentioned.	Medium	Reduced visibility into change history.	Enable CI/CD audit logging with retention.
Distributed Tracing	Tracing solution required.	Not mentioned.	High	Difficult debugging of microservices workflows.	Implement OpenTelemetry with Jaeger/Tempo/Zipkin.
Testing & Coverage	≥80% coverage + regression tests.	Not mentioned.	High	Unknown code stability and regression risk.	Measure coverage; implement regression suite in CI.
Coding Standards & Linting	Linting compliance required.	Not mentioned.	Medium	Inconsistent code quality, onboarding friction.	Adopt pre-commit linting + CI enforcement.
GDPR Alignment	ISO, SOC2, GDPR compliance required.	GDPR not mentioned.	High	Regulatory/legal risk affecting deal valuation.	Produce GDPR alignment documentation (RoPA, DPIAs, DPO role).
Security Policy Governance	Quarterly review with threat intel.	Not mentioned.	Medium	Policies may become outdated.	Define review cadence and threat-intel sources.
Pen-Test Remediation Tracking	Remediation plans must be tracked.	Quarterly tests; remediation not described.	Medium	Cannot verify closure of vulnerabilities.	Document remediation workflow with SLAs.
IP Ownership & Contributor Agreements	Code ownership and contributor agreements required.	Not described.	High	Potential legal/IP encumbrance.	Provide chain-of-title, licenses, and contributor agreements.
Architecture Decision Records (ADRs)	ADRs required.	Not mentioned.	Low–Medium	Harder to understand rationale for key choices.	Adopt ADRs or equivalent and document major decisions.
Onboarding & Technical Documentation	Up-to-date onboarding, API docs, diagrams required.	Partially covered via Confluence; missing specifics.	Medium	Slower onboarding and integration friction.	Publish onboarding guides, API specs, architecture diagrams.

Internal Process Alignment

Compare two versions of standard operating procedures, security policies, or training manuals and identify divergence points.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

This analysis aligns Corporate_Security_Policy_v2_Expanded.pdf (v2.5) as the target security standard against Corporate_Security_Policy_v1_Expanded.pdf (v1.0) as the legacy baseline. Controls are compared across purpose/scope, governance, access management, data protection, monitoring, and incident response. For each requirement in v2.5, the v1.0 treatment is assessed as aligned, partially aligned, or a gap. The analysis identifies strengthened or newly introduced controls in v2.5, highlights weaker or missing requirements in v1.0, and maps risk implications and remediation steps. The structure follows ISO 27001/SOC 2-style control gap assessments and is suitable for internal policy modernization planning and audit preparation.

Section-by-Section Control Alignment

Section / Control Area	v2.5 Requirement	v1.0 Treatment	Alignment Status
Purpose & Scope	Comprehensive requirements; applies to employees, contractors, partners; includes cloud-native services, SaaS, CI/CD, 3rd-party integrations; mandates consistent enforcement across business units.	Minimum requirements; includes employees, interns, contractors, vendors; covers corporate networks/cloud/end-user/on-prem; no CI/CD or SaaS focus; no BU enforcement mandate.	Partially Aligned
Governance & Responsibilities	CISO-led strategy; ISO27001/SOC2 compliance oversight; Security Governance Committee; Business Unit Security Leads; quarterly training; annual assessments.	CISO oversees implementation; Security Operations Team handles monitoring; department managers ensure adherence; training required but irregular; no governance committee/BUSLs or framework oversight cadence.	Partially Aligned
Access Control – MFA	Mandatory MFA everywhere; phishing-resistant MFA for admins.	Password-only allowed; MFA not required; no phishing-resistant methods.	Gap
Access Control – Password Policy	Minimum 14 chars; complexity; rotation every 60 days.	Minimum 10 chars; rotation every 120 days; no complexity requirement.	Gap
Access Control – Privileged Access	RBAC enforced; quarterly review; automated provisioning.	Manual provisioning; annual review; no RBAC or automation.	Gap
Access Control – Shared Accounts	Human shared accounts prohibited; only approved service accounts with logging.	Shared accounts allowed with manager approval; no logging requirement.	Gap
Access Control – Remote Access	Zero trust network access with continuous risk evaluation.	VPN-based; MFA optional; no ZTNA or risk scoring.	Gap
Data Classification – Schema	Public/Internal/Confidential/Restricted/Regulated with control-matrix appendix.	Public/Internal/Confidential/Restricted; no Regulated tier; no matrix appendix.	Partially Aligned
Data Protection – Encryption	AES-256 at rest; TLS 1.3 in transit; encrypted/versioned backups.	Encryption only where feasible; no cipher standards; backups not required encrypted.	Gap
Data Protection – Backups & Retention	Encrypted/versioned/12-month retention; quarterly integrity checks; regulatory alignment (GDPR/HIPAA/PCI/SOC2).	Weekly backups kept 90 days; no encryption/integrity checks; retention schedules not enforced; no regulatory mapping.	Gap
Security Monitoring & Logging – Coverage	All systems forwarded to SIEM; continuous monitoring; behavioral analytics; MITRE-aligned alert thresholds.	Core infra logs only; best-effort review; limited retention; no SIEM; no analytics; no standardized thresholds.	Gap
Incident Response – Reporting & Workflow	1-hour reporting SLA; NIST 800-61 lifecycle; SOC portal workflow.	24-hour SLA; simplified four phases; no NIST reference; report via helpdesk/email.	Partially Aligned
Incident Response – RCA & Metrics	RCA required for medium/high incidents; 5-day SLA; quarterly trends report.	RCA only for major incidents; no SLA; quarterly reporting optional; trends/corrective actions not mandated.	Gap
Appendix / Regulatory Alignment	Appendix B: GDPR/ISO27001/SOC2/HIPAA mappings; regulatory definitions; v1.0 vs v2.5 crosswalk.	Appendix A: basic internal definitions; no external standards mapping.	Gap

Control Gap Register (v2.5 Expectations vs v1.0 Policy)

Control Domain	v2.5 Expectation	v1.0 Status	Gap Type	Suggested Remediation
Governance	Security Governance Committee with monthly meetings.	No committee; governance limited to CISO + department managers.	Missing structure	Establish committee with charter, membership, meeting cadence.
Governance	Business Unit Security Leads (BUSLs).	No BUSLs; only departmental managers.	Role gap	Create BUSL roles for enforcement, audit support, risk mgmt.
Training & Awareness	Quarterly training + annual assessments.	Training required but no cadence; no assessments.	Insufficient rigor	Define quarterly training and annual assessment requirements.
Compliance Frameworks	ISO27001/SOC2 oversight with mapping appendix.	No framework alignment.	Missing requirement	Add compliance framework references and mapping appendix.
Access Control – MFA	MFA everywhere; phishing-resistant for admins.	Password-only; no MFA policy.	Major security gap	Mandate MFA and phishing-resistant MFA for administrators.
Access Control – Password Policy	14-character minimum, complexity rules.	10-character minimum; no complexity.	Weaker control	Increase minimum length and define complexity/entropy requirements.
Access Control – Privileged Access	RBAC; quarterly reviews; automated provisioning.	Manual provisioning; annual reviews; no RBAC.	Process & control gap	Implement RBAC and quarterly PRI review + automated provisioning.
Access Control – Shared Accounts	No shared human accounts; only service accounts with logging.	Shared accounts allowed with approval.	Policy conflict	Prohibit shared accounts; enforce logging + justification for service accounts.
Network Access	ZTNA with risk-based evaluation.	VPN; no ZTNA; MFA optional.	Architecture gap	Adopt ZTNA model and risk-based conditional access.
Data Classification	Regulated tier with control requirements.	No Regulated tier; no appendix.	Taxonomy gap	Add Regulated tier and control-matrix appendix.
Encryption	Mandatory AES-256/TLS 1.3.	Discretionary encryption; no cipher standards.	Weak control	Mandate AES-256/TLS 1.3 with limited exceptions.
Backups	Encrypted, versioned, 12-month retention.	No encryption; 90-day retention.	Operational gap	Encrypt/version backups; extend retention; conduct integrity checks.
Data Retention	Compliance-enforced schedules; regulatory alignment.	Recommended but unenforced; no compliance oversight.	Compliance gap	Assign compliance ownership; enforce schedule; align with GDPR/HIPAA/PCI.
Monitoring & Logging – Coverage	SIEM for all systems; ≥12-month retention.	Partial central logging; 30-day retention.	Visibility gap	Forward all logs to SIEM and extend retention window.
Monitoring & Logging – Analytics	Behavioral analytics; MITRE-aligned thresholds.	No analytics; thresholds ad hoc.	Detection-quality gap	Deploy UEBA and standardize thresholds with MITRE ATT&CK.
Incident Reporting	1-hour SLA to SOC via portal.	24-hour SLA via helpdesk/email.	Timeliness & channel gap	Define SOC and require 1-hour reporting SLA.
Incident Process Standard	NIST 800-61 lifecycle.	Simplified model; no NIST reference.	Standards alignment gap	Adopt full NIST 800-61 phases.
Root Cause Analysis	RCA for medium/high within 5 days.	RCA for major only; no SLA.	Depth-of-analysis gap	Enforce RCA requirements and deadlines.
Metrics & Reporting	Quarterly reporting with trends/CA.	Optional reporting; limited metrics.	Governance/oversight gap	Mandate formal quarterly incident/risk reporting.
Regulatory Mapping	Appendix B with GDPR/ISO/SOC/HIPAA mappings.	No regulatory mapping.	Documentation gap	Add appendix with regulatory mappings and v1/v2 crosswalk.

Risk-Oriented Impact Assessment (From v1.0 Relative to v2.5)

Risk Area	Underlying Policy Weakness	Likelihood	Business Impact	Overall Risk Level	Primary Mitigation
Account Takeover & Unauthorized Access	Password-only auth; weak password policy; MFA not required; shared accounts allowed.	High	Compromise of user/admin accounts; data breaches.	Critical	Require MFA; strengthen password rules; eliminate shared accounts; enforce RBAC.
Remote Access & Lateral Movement	VPN-only; no MFA or ZTNA; no risk-based evaluation.	High	Unauthorized network access enabling lateral movement.	High	Adopt ZTNA with MFA and least-privilege segmentation.
Data Breach & Regulatory Non-Compliance	Discretionary encryption; weak retention policies; no regulatory alignment.	Medium–High	PII/PHI/financial data exposure; regulatory fines.	High	Mandate AES-256/TLS1.3; enforce retention schedules; align with GDPR/HIPAA/PCI.
Insufficient Detection & Forensics	Limited logging; short retention; no SIEM; no analytics.	High	Delayed detection; weak investigations; audit failures.	High	Implement SIEM, extend retention, and add behavioral analytics.
Ineffective Incident Response	24-hour SLA; simplified lifecycle; optional reporting; weak RCA.	Medium	Slow response, recurring incidents, limited visibility.	Medium–High	Adopt NIST lifecycle; 1-hour SLA; require RCA and quarterly reporting.
Weak Governance & Oversight	No governance committee; no BUSLs; no cadence for reviews.	Medium	Inconsistent enforcement; audit gaps; unmanaged risks.	Medium–High	Formalize governance structures and training cadence.
Audit Preparedness & Evidence	No regulatory mapping; short retention of incidents/backups.	Medium	Difficulty proving compliance; delays in certifications.	Medium	Extend retention and add regulatory mapping/crosswalk appendix.

Overlap & Strength Reuse Opportunities

Control Topic	Existing Strength in v1.0	Enhanced Treatment in v2.5	Reuse / Enhancement Strategy
Purpose & Applicability	Policy mandatory for employees/contractors; covers networks, cloud, endpoints.	Adds partners, SaaS, CI/CD, 3rd parties, BU enforcement.	Preserve clarity; extend scope to include partners and modern environments.
CISO Role	CISO oversees policy implementation and reviews.	CISO leads strategy, framework compliance, risk reviews.	Expand duties to include strategic leadership and compliance frameworks.
Security Operations	Ops team manages monitoring, triage, scanning.	SOC model with SIEM + behavioral analytics.	Evolve Ops team into SOC with continuous monitoring requirements.
Data Classification	Defines Public/Internal/Confidential/Restricted.	Adds Regulated tier + appendix control matrix.	Extend v1.0 taxonomy and add required control appendices.
Incident Lifecycle	Defines phases: Detection, Containment, Recovery, Post-Event Review.	Uses full NIST 800-61 lifecycle.	Map existing phases to NIST and expand to full cycle.
Definitions	Defines Sensitive Data, Critical System, User Credentials.	Adds regulatory definitions + standards mappings.	Keep internal definitions; append regulatory definitions/crosswalk tables.

Education & Training

Evaluate student work against rubrics, professional standards, or accreditation criteria at scale and with clarity.

Draft Document

Reference Criteria

Output Analysis

Document_B_Rubric_Long.pdf is treated as the grading rubric and Document_A_Student_Essay_Long.pdf as the student submission. Rubric criteria are normalized across Content Understanding, Critical Thinking & Analysis, Structure & Organization, Writing Quality & Mechanics, Use of Sources, and Accreditation & Professional Standards. Each rubric bullet is evaluated against explicit evidence found in the essay. The essay demonstrates strong topical understanding and organized structure but exhibits clear weaknesses in critical analysis depth, citation use, thesis clarity, and mechanical accuracy due to OCR artifacts. The tables highlight where rubric expectations are met, partially met, or not met, and identify actionable improvements aligned with academic writing standards and rubric criteria.

Rubric Criteria Evaluation by Category

Category	Specific Criterion	Evidence in Essay	Assessment
Content Understanding	Demonstrates comprehensive understanding of renewable energy concepts.	Describes solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal; discusses roles, barriers, impacts.	Meets
Content Understanding	Accurately explains core sustainability principles and global relevance.	Connects renewable energy to climate mitigation, emissions reduction, global development.	Meets
Content Understanding	Provides depth and clarity on key technologies and systems.	Multi-paragraph detail on micro-grids, offshore wind, dams, batteries, smart grids.	Meets
Content Understanding	Shows awareness of international policy frameworks and agreements.	References Paris Climate Accord and global emissions-reduction collaboration.	Meets
Critical Thinking & Analysis	Evaluates multiple viewpoints regarding renewable energy challenges.	Mentions political/environmental debates but lacks explicit stakeholder perspectives.	Partially Meets
Critical Thinking & Analysis	Provides evidence-based reasoning supported by examples/data.	Uses qualitative examples but no quantitative data or cited research.	Partially Meets
Critical Thinking & Analysis	Identifies trade-offs, limitations, long-term implications.	Discusses land use, habitat impacts, intermittency, water management, economic issues.	Meets
Critical Thinking & Analysis	Synthesizes complex topics into coherent arguments.	Organized thematically but lacks thesis-driven argument and counter-arguments.	Partially Meets
Structure & Organization	Clear introduction with thesis context.	Introduces topic but lacks a sharply defined thesis statement.	Partially Meets
Structure & Organization	Logical sequencing of ideas.	Flows from context → technologies → barriers → education/business → collaboration → future.	Meets
Structure & Organization	Smooth transitions.	Transitions generally strong but weakened by repeated blocks.	Partially Meets
Structure & Organization	Conclusion summarizes insights and broader impact.	Conclusion reiterates renewable energy’s global sustainability importance.	Meets
Writing Quality & Mechanics	Grammar, punctuation, spelling meet academic standards.	Grammar mostly strong, but several OCR artifacts ('4inancial', 'in4luential').	Partially Meets
Writing Quality & Mechanics	Sentence structure supports clarity and readability.	Sentences clear and coherent; some repetition due to duplicated blocks.	Meets
Writing Quality & Mechanics	Tone is formal, appropriate, consistent.	Formal academic tone maintained throughout.	Meets
Writing Quality & Mechanics	Demonstrates academic writing conventions.	Formal style but lacks citations, thesis clarity, and academic structuring.	Partially Meets
Use of Sources	Citations follow academic formatting guidelines.	No citations or references.	Does Not Meet
Use of Sources	Uses credible, peer-reviewed, authoritative sources.	No explicit sources mentioned.	Does Not Meet
Use of Sources	Evidence supports key arguments.	Examples included but not grounded in cited research.	Partially Meets
Use of Sources	Avoids plagiarism or misrepresentation.	No sources → cannot verify attribution or originality.	Partially Meets
Accreditation & Professional Standards	Meets expectations for college-level writing competency.	Strong topic mastery but missing citations and polished mechanics.	Partially Meets
Accreditation & Professional Standards	Aligns with environmental science/sustainability curriculum standards.	Discusses climate change, energy systems, policy, societal impact.	Meets
Accreditation & Professional Standards	Demonstrates ethical reasoning and societal awareness.	Explores indigenous land use, habitat disruption, equity in adoption.	Meets
Accreditation & Professional Standards	Readiness for advanced academic/professional settings.	Strong content but lacks scholarly rigor (citations, structure, polish).	Partially Meets

Criterion Coverage Summary

Category	Total Criteria	Meets	Partially Meets	Does Not Meet	Key Observations
Content Understanding	4	4	0	0	Excellent conceptual coverage; strongest rubric category.
Critical Thinking & Analysis	4	1	3	0	Needs more multi-perspective analysis and use of data.
Structure & Organization	4	2	2	0	Logical flow but thesis clarity and transitions need refinement.
Writing Quality & Mechanics	4	2	2	0	OCR errors and incomplete academic conventions reduce polish.
Use of Sources	4	0	2	2	No citations, no references: major academic gap.
Accreditation & Professional Standards	4	2	2	0	Strong topic coverage; missing scholarly rigor.

Gaps and Improvement Actions

Gap Area	Related Rubric Category	Description of Gap	Suggested Improvement
Thesis & Argumentation	Structure & Organization; Critical Thinking & Analysis	No precise, arguable thesis guiding the essay.	Add a clear thesis statement identifying the central argument or stance.
Multi-viewpoint Evaluation	Critical Thinking & Analysis	Limited exploration of contrasting stakeholder viewpoints.	Include explicit perspectives from policymakers, communities, industry, and critics.
Evidence-based Reasoning & Data	Critical Thinking & Analysis; Use of Sources	No quantitative data or empirical citations supporting claims.	Add data, statistics, and cited research to strengthen arguments.
Use of Citations & References	Use of Sources	Essay contains no citations or references.	Add in-text citations and a reference list using academic style guidelines.
Mechanical Accuracy	Writing Quality & Mechanics	OCR artifacts ('4inancial', 'de4ining') and spacing issues.	Proofread thoroughly and correct all mechanical/typographical errors.
Repetition & Length Efficiency	Structure & Organization; Accreditation	Large duplicated blocks reduce clarity and professionalism.	Remove repeated paragraphs and tighten redundant text.
Academic Writing Conventions	Writing Quality & Mechanics; Accreditation	Missing headings, argument structure, and citation conventions.	Add section headings, clearer argument structure, and citation formatting.
Source Credibility & Plagiarism Safeguards	Use of Sources	No identifiable sources → credibility and attribution cannot be verified.	Use authoritative, peer-reviewed sources and attribute all referenced ideas.