CPS 230 makes operational resilience a board-owned obligation — critical operations, tolerance levels and material service providers all need evidence, not assertions. CPS 234 tripartite reviews ask for an information-security posture you can defend line by line. Most institutions still answer with spreadsheets assembled the week before the review.
Tier-A breadthCPS 230 operational resilience · CPS 234 information security
Frameworks on the engine serving this vertical
Read from the live catalogue at build time — a framework that is not live on the engine never renders here. Depth is badged per framework: consultant-grade only where we go deepest (ISM/IRAP, Essential Eight), Tier-A breadth everywhere else.
Licence-gated catalogues carry control IDs and CyberSentien's own labels only — the full standard text requires your licence and is never reproduced.
Depth today — stated honestly
Tier-A breadth today: control-level catalogues with evidence-led posture across the APRA standards, an operational-resilience strip and material-supplier / BIA registers (CPS 230 framing), plus a board & regulator pack. The engine is the evidence layer a bank or its reviewer works from — it does not replace an APRA-appointed tripartite reviewer, and nothing shows green without evidence.
The global angle
The APRA lane — APRA CPS 230 (Operational Risk), APRA CPS 234 (Information Security), APRA CPS 220 (Risk Management / Model Risk) — is Australian by design: that is the wedge, stated plainly. The same evidence base renders the internationally used instruments a banking group answers to beyond Australia — ISO/IEC 27001:2022, SOC 1 (ISAE 3402), SOC 2 (Trust Services Criteria), PCI DSS v4.0.1 — so one assessment run reports across jurisdictions without re-assessing.
See it on the real engine
Run the frameworks above against synthetic sample documents now, or tell us where you sit and we'll send a gated, revocable demo link.