Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

  /

  / The Five Trust Service Criteria of SOC 2 Compliance Solution: A Simple Guide for Non-Technical Leaders

The Five Trust Service Criteria of SOC 2 Compliance Solution: A Simple Guide for Non-Technical Leaders

five-trust-service-criteria-soc-2-compliance

Digital trust now determines whether businesses win customers, partnerships, and long-term contracts. Data breaches, service outages, and regulatory failures erode confidence faster than pricing or competition. Many leaders understand these risks but struggle with technical security frameworks. An SOC 2 compliance solution solves this problem by translating security expectations into business-relevant trust principles.

The five Trust Service Criteria define how organizations protect systems, ensure reliability, and respect customer data. These criteria are not technical checklists. They represent outcomes that stakeholders expect from responsible companies. This guide explains each criterion in simple terms for non-technical leaders. It focuses on why each one matters and how it supports business objectives.

Executives carry responsibility for brand reputation, customer confidence, and operational continuity. However, cybersecurity discussions often feel complex and detached from daily decision-making. This gap creates unseen exposure until an audit failure or incident occurs.

SOC 2 connects security controls to business risk. Instead of focusing on tools, the SOC 2 compliance solution emphasizes trust, accountability, and consistency. It helps leaders understand whether systems are secure, services remain available, and data is handled responsibly. Knowing the Trust Service Criteria enables leadership teams to guide strategy, allocate resources wisely, and communicate confidence to customers.

Before exploring each criterion, a summary simplifies the essentials.

TL;DR

• SOC 2 focuses on building customer and stakeholder trust
• Five criteria define how systems stay secure and reliable
• Security is mandatory for every SOC 2 report
• Other criteria depend on business operations and data usage
• Leadership involvement strengthens audit outcomes and credibility

Understanding The Trust Service Criteria Framework

The Trust Service Criteria form the foundation of SOC 2 reporting. Each criterion addresses a different dimension of trust and operational discipline. Organizations select applicable criteria based on how systems are used and what customer data they handle.

The five criteria include Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy. Together, they create a comprehensive view of organizational reliability.

Therefore, leaders do not need technical depth to understand their intent. What matters is recognizing how these principles protect business continuity and customer confidence.

Security: Protecting Systems from Unauthorized Access

Security is the core of SOC 2 and applies to every engagement. It focuses on preventing unauthorized access, misuse, or compromise of systems.

From a leadership perspective, security represents governance and accountability. It answers whether the organization understands its threats and applies safeguards appropriately. Controls typically include access restrictions, monitoring systems, incident response processes, and employee training.

Security failures often lead to reputational damage and regulatory scrutiny. Strong controls demonstrate that the organization actively protects its assets and customer data. For non-technical leaders, security success means fewer surprises and faster responses during incidents.

 

Availability: Keeping Systems Reliable And Accessible

Availability evaluates whether systems operate as expected and remain accessible during normal and adverse conditions. It directly impacts customer satisfaction and revenue continuity.

Business leaders should associate availability with service reliability. This criterion assesses disaster recovery planning, system capacity, performance monitoring, and backup processes. Downtime can disrupt operations, damage trust, and violate service commitments.

Effective availability controls show that the organization plans for disruptions instead of reacting to them. Customers value vendors who deliver consistent performance, especially during unexpected events.

Ensure system reliability supports your growth strategy by aligning availability controls with real business expectations.

Processing Integrity: Delivering Accurate & Complete Results

Processing integrity focuses on whether systems process data correctly, completely, and on time. This criterion matters for organizations handling transactions, calculations, or automated decisions.

Leaders often overlook processing integrity until errors affect customers or reporting accuracy. A professional SOC 2 compliance solution ensures systems follow defined workflows, validation checks, and error handling procedures. It reduces the risk of incorrect outputs that harm trust.

When processing integrity is strong, customers receive consistent results. Leaders gain confidence that operational data supports informed decisions. This criterion reinforces reliability across digital processes.

Confidentiality: Restricting Access to Sensitive Information

Confidentiality addresses how organizations protect sensitive, restricted, or proprietary information. This includes business data, intellectual property, and customer records not classified as personal data.

From a strategic angle, confidentiality safeguards competitive advantage. SOC 2 generally evaluates encryption practices, data classification, access controls, and secure disposal procedures. It ensures information is only accessed by authorized individuals.

Customers and partners prefer businesses that respect contractual and confidentiality obligations. Strong confidentiality controls help prevent data leaks and trust erosion.

Privacy: Managing Personal Data Responsibly

Privacy focuses on the collection, use, retention, and disposal of personal information. It applies when businesses process data connected to identifiable individuals.

Leaders should view privacy as reputation protection. SOC 2 evaluates consent management, data minimization, transparency, and regulatory alignment. Improper handling of personal data leads to legal penalties and public scrutiny.

Privacy controls demonstrate ethical responsibility and regulatory awareness. Customers increasingly choose companies that respect personal data rights.

Choosing The Right Trust Service Criteria

Not every organization needs all five criteria. Selection depends on business model, services offered, and data types handled. Leadership involvement ensures the scope aligns with actual risks.

Overcommitting increases complexity, while under-scoping weakens assurance value. A thoughtful selection balances compliance efficiency with stakeholder expectations. Hence, visit Axipro.

Clarify your SOC 2 scope early to align trust objectives with operational realities.

How the Five Trust Service Criteria Fit Into a SOC 2 Report

A SOC 2 report is structured around the Trust Service Criteria, but not every report includes all five. The criteria you choose shape the scope of the audit, the controls tested, and how customers interpret your assurance posture.

At its core, Security is mandatory. Every SOC 2 report includes it. The other four criteria are optional and selected based on how your product operates, what data you handle, and what your customers expect.

A SOC 2 report tells a story. It explains your system, defines the boundaries of responsibility, and then evaluates how well your controls support the selected criteria over time.

The criteria are not separate silos. They overlap by design. A single control, such as access management, often supports Security, Confidentiality, and Privacy simultaneously. Auditors assess how controls work together, not in isolation.

The table below shows how each criterion typically fits into a SOC 2 report and when it is most relevant.

Trust Service Criterion

How It Appears in the SOC 2 Report

When It Is Typically Included

Security

Core foundation of the report, covering access controls, risk management, monitoring, and incident response

Always required for all SOC 2 reports

Availability

Evaluated through uptime commitments, disaster recovery, and business continuity controls

When customers rely on system uptime or SLAs

Processing Integrity

Focuses on accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of system processing

When systems perform critical transactions or data processing

Confidentiality

Assesses how sensitive business data is classified, protected, and restricted

When handling proprietary or regulated non-personal data

Privacy

Reviews how personal data is collected, used, retained, and deleted

When processing personal data subject to privacy laws

From an auditor’s perspective, the SOC 2 report maps each control to one or more criteria. From a customer’s perspective, the criteria explain what risks you have addressed and which ones fall outside scope.

This is why scoping matters. Including unnecessary criteria increases audit effort without adding value. Excluding relevant criteria can raise red flags during customer reviews.

For non-technical leaders, the key takeaway is simple. The Trust Service Criteria define the promise your SOC 2 report makes. The controls are how you keep it.

Common Misconceptions among Non-Technical Leaders

five-trust-service-criteria-soc-2-explained

Many leaders believe SOC 2 is purely technical or owned solely by IT teams. In reality, leadership involvement shapes success. Policies, accountability, and resource allocation drive outcomes.

Another misconception is treating SOC 2 as a one-time effort. Continuous monitoring and improvement define its real value. Understanding this prevents compliance fatigue and improves sustainability.

Final Thoughts

Trust does not happen by accident. It results from consistent, accountable operations supported by clear controls. The five Trust Service Criteria of SOC 2 provide a practical framework for earning that trust.

Non-technical leaders do not need deep security expertise to benefit from a professional SOC 2 compliance solution. Understanding the intent behind each criterion empowers better decisions and stronger oversight. Organizations that embrace these principles build lasting credibility with customers and partners. So, if your organization is one of them, consult our experts at Axipro.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do all SOC 2 reports include all five criteria?

No. Security is mandatory. Other criteria depend on business operations and data usage.

Start with how your product is used and what your customers rely on you for. Security always applies, but the remaining criteria depend on whether customers depend on uptime, whether your system processes critical transactions, and whether you handle sensitive or personal data. Sales requirements, customer security questionnaires, and regulatory obligations are often the clearest signals of what should be in scope.

Confidentiality focuses on protecting sensitive business information, such as contracts, intellectual property, or customer data that is not personal. Privacy is specifically about personal data and how it is collected, used, retained, disclosed, and deleted. In simple terms, confidentiality protects data based on sensitivity, while privacy protects data based on identity.

They apply only to the systems and processes defined in the SOC 2 scope. A SOC 2 report does not certify your entire company. It evaluates specific systems, people, and processes that support the services described in the report. Clear scoping is critical to avoid unnecessary audit effort and confusion during reviews.

Yes. Trust Service Criteria can be adjusted in future SOC 2 reports as your product, data handling, or customer expectations evolve. Many organizations start with Security only and expand later. Any change requires rescoping and auditor agreement, but it is a normal part of SOC 2 maturity rather than a red flag.

Strengthen trust, minimize risk, and lead confidently by aligning SOC 2 principles with business strategy.

Axipro Author

Picture of Thatware

Thatware

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

One in five organizations has already suffered a breach traced back to shadow AI. Meanwhile, 63% of breached organizations either have no AI governance policy at all or are still drafting one. Below is a complete, copy-ready shadow AI policy template with twelve sections, plus guidance on adapting it for your company size, your industry, and the regulatory frameworks you answer to. The template assumes one hard truth up front: your employees are already using unapproved AI tools. A policy that pretends adoption hasn’t started yet fails on day one, so this one starts from the assumption that it has. What Is a Shadow AI Policy? A shadow AI policy is a formal document that defines how your organization discovers, evaluates, approves, and governs AI tools that employees adopt outside official IT channels. The term borrows from shadow IT, the older problem of unsanctioned software and hardware, but the AI version carries sharper risks: data pasted into a public model may be retained, used for training, or exposed in ways the organization can’t reverse. The policy does three jobs: it separates approved use from unapproved use, gives employees a fast and visible way to request new tools so the sanctioned route beats the workaround, and spells out what happens when someone crosses the line, including how the organization detects it and responds. Shadow AI Policy vs. General AI Acceptable Use Policy Many organizations already have an AI acceptable use policy (AUP) and assume it covers shadow AI. It usually doesn’t. An AUP tells employees how to behave inside approved tools. A shadow AI policy governs the tools themselves: which ones exist in your environment, which ones are allowed, and what happens with the rest. You need both. The AUP handles conduct; the shadow AI policy handles inventory and control. If you only have room for one document, fold the AUP’s data-handling rules into Section 6 of the template below. Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that’s practical, compliant, and audit-ready. Strengthen Your Business Continuity Strategy​ Schedule A Consultation The Shadow AI Policy Template (Download Link and Copy-Ready Sections) We’ve created a compliance safe template for Shadow AI Policy, use the link below to create a copy and customize for your company: Download The Shadow AI Policy Template → Copy the sections below into your policy management system and replace the bracketed placeholders. The language is plain on purpose. Legalese gets skimmed. Section 1: Purpose and Scope This policy governs the acquisition, approval, and use of artificial intelligence tools, features, and services at [Company]. It applies to all employees, contractors, interns, and third parties with access to [Company] systems or data. It covers standalone AI applications, AI features embedded in existing software, browser extensions, AI agents, APIs, and personal AI accounts used for work purposes, on both corporate and personal devices. The purpose of this policy is to enable productive AI use while protecting [Company] data, customers, and legal obligations. This policy does not prohibit AI. It prohibits ungoverned AI. That last sentence matters. Employees read the purpose statement first, and it decides whether they see the policy as an enabler or a blocker. Section 2: Definitions and Terminology Shadow AI: any AI tool, feature, agent, or service used for work purposes without formal approval under this policy. Approved AI Tool: an AI tool listed in the Approved AI Tools Registry (Section 4) and used under a [Company]-managed account. Personal AI Account: an account on any AI service registered to a personal email address or paid for personally. AI Feature: AI functionality embedded within otherwise approved software (e.g., an AI assistant added to a project management tool), which requires separate evaluation. Sensitive Data: data classified as [Confidential] or [Restricted] under [Company]‘s data classification policy, including the prohibited data classes in Section 6. Define “AI feature” explicitly. Vendors now ship AI additions into already-approved SaaS products every month, and without this definition, those features inherit approval they never earned. Section 3: Roles and Responsibilities The CISO (or designated security lead) owns this policy, maintains the Approved AI Tools Registry, and runs the approval workflow. Department heads ensure their teams know the policy and surface tool requests rather than suppressing them. Legal and Compliance review tools that touch regulated data or fall under the EU AI Act, GDPR, HIPAA, or client contractual restrictions. IT operates detection and monitoring controls (Section 9). Every employee is responsible for using only approved tools for work, reporting unapproved AI use they discover, and requesting new tools through the workflow in Section 7 rather than adopting them directly. Insider Note: In organizations under roughly 200 people, the “CISO” in this section is often the same overworked IT lead who manages laptops. Name a real person, not a title that doesn’t exist yet. A policy that assigns duties to a phantom role is unenforceable, and auditors notice. Section 4: Approved AI Tools Registry [Company] maintains a registry of approved AI tools at [location/URL]. For each tool, the registry records: tool name and vendor, approved use cases, prohibited use cases, permitted data classes, account type (enterprise/team/individual), data retention and training settings, risk tier (Section 5), approval date, and next review date. Only tools listed in the registry may be used for work. Tools not listed are unapproved by default. The registry is reviewed [quarterly]. Keep the registry somewhere employees actually look, such as your intranet homepage or IT help center, not buried in a GRC platform they can’t access. An invisible registry recreates the problem the policy exists to fix. Section 5: Risk Tier Classification (Low, Medium, High) Each tool in the registry is assigned a risk tier. Low: the tool processes only public or internal non-sensitive data, runs under an enterprise agreement with training opt-out, and produces output that a human reviews before use. Approval by IT Security alone. Medium: the tool processes internal business data or connects to [Company] systems via API or integration. Approval by IT Security plus the data owner. High: the

Legacy threat modeling frameworks such as STRIDE were designed for software that behaves the same way over and over again. Agentic AI does no such thing. It can rewrite its own plan mid-task, call external tools, negotiate with other agents, and produce a different output from identical input. MAESTRO exists because none of the legacy threat modeling frameworks were built to handle that. MAESTRO stands for Multi-Agent Environment, Security, Threat, Risk, and Outcome. It is a seven-layer threat modeling framework created specifically for agentic AI systems, and it has become the closest thing the industry has to a standard method for reasoning about agent security. Understanding MAESTRO in the Context of Agentic AI What MAESTRO Stands For Each word in the acronym carries meaning. Multi-Agent Environment signals that the framework models entire ecosystems of interacting agents, not a single model behind an API. Security, Threat, Risk covers the core discipline: identifying attack surfaces, cataloging threats, and assessing likelihood and impact. Outcome is the part most frameworks skip. MAESTRO asks what an attack actually produces in the real world, because an autonomous agent with tool access turns a compromised prompt into a compromised action. The Origin of MAESTRO (Cloud Security Alliance) The Cloud Security Alliance published MAESTRO in February 2025. Its creator is Ken Huang, Co-Chair of the CSA AI Safety Working Groups and CEO of DistributedApps.ai. The CSA has since applied the framework publicly to real systems, including OpenAI’s Responses API and Google’s A2A protocol, which gives practitioners worked examples rather than just theory. The framework is openly published, and the CSA maintains an official companion tool, the MAESTRO Threat Analyzer, on GitHub. SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA done for you. Fixed fee, 100% audit pass rate. Audit-ready in 6 weeks. Not 6 months. Schedule Free Assessment Why Traditional Frameworks Fall Short for Agentic AI STRIDE, PASTA, LINDDUN, and OCTAVE all share a founding assumption: the system under analysis follows predictable logic with clearly defined boundaries. You draw the data flow diagram, mark the trust boundaries, and enumerate threats against components that behave deterministically. Agentic AI breaks every part of that assumption. Unique Security Challenges of Autonomous Agents Agents introduce three properties that legacy models cannot express. Non-determinism means the same input can produce different behavior, so you cannot enumerate execution paths in advance. Autonomy means the agent makes decisions and takes actions without a human approving each step, which collapses the usual assumption that a person sits between intent and execution. And in multi-agent systems there is often no stable trust boundary: agents delegate to other agents, consume tool outputs from external servers via protocols like the Model Context Protocol (MCP), and update their own memory and goals at runtime. The Gap Between Legacy Frameworks and Agent-Based Systems The practical consequence is coverage gaps. STRIDE has no category for goal manipulation, where an attacker gradually steers what an agent is trying to achieve. PASTA assumes attacker objectives and data flows are fixed, which fails for systems that learn and adapt during operation. LINDDUN addresses privacy but says nothing about agent collusion or memory poisoning. A threat model built purely on these frameworks will pass review and still miss the attacks that matter most in an agentic deployment. How MAESTRO Addresses Agentic-Specific Risks MAESTRO does not discard the older frameworks. It extends them with a layered reference architecture, an AI-specific threat catalog for each layer, and, critically, explicit analysis of how threats propagate between layers. That cross-layer lens is the framework’s real contribution, because most serious agentic incidents are chains: poisoned data influences a model, the model misleads an agent, and the agent takes an unauthorized action three layers away from where the attack started. The Seven Layers of the MAESTRO Framework MAESTRO decomposes any agentic system into seven layers, each with its own threat landscape. Layer 1: Foundation Models The core LLMs or other models the agents reason with. Threats here include adversarial examples, model extraction, backdoored weights, and jailbreaks that bypass safety training. If the model is a third-party API, supply chain risk lives at this layer too. Layer 2: Data Operations Everything the agent ingests, stores, and retrieves: training data, RAG pipelines, vector databases, and agent memory. Data poisoning and memory tampering are the signature threats at this layer, and they are especially dangerous because a poisoned memory persists across sessions and keeps shaping future decisions long after the initial attack. Layer 3: Agent Frameworks The orchestration software that turns a model into an agent: LangChain, CrewAI, AutoGen, custom planners, and tool-calling logic. Threats include prompt injection through tool outputs, insecure tool definitions, and manipulation of the planning loop itself. Layer 4: Deployment Infrastructure The servers, containers, and cloud services the agents run on. The CSA’s threat catalog here reads like traditional cloud security with an agentic twist: compromised container images carrying malicious agent code, Kubernetes orchestration attacks, denial of service against agent runtimes, and tampering with Infrastructure-as-Code templates that provision agent resources. Layer 5: Evaluation and Observability The systems that monitor, evaluate, and debug agent behavior. This layer is often forgotten, and attackers know it. The CSA specifically flags poisoning observability data: manipulating the telemetry fed to monitoring systems so that incidents stay hidden from security teams while malicious activity continues. Layer 6: Security and Compliance MAESTRO treats this as a vertical layer that cuts across all others: identity and access management, guardrails, policy enforcement, and compliance controls. Threats include permission escalation, guardrail bypass, and compromise of the security agents themselves in architectures where AI enforces policy on other AI. Layer 7: Agent Ecosystem The environment where agents interact with users, other agents, and marketplaces. This is where the genuinely novel threats live: agent impersonation, misleading agent capability cards, tool squatting, and collusion between agents to achieve outcomes no single agent was authorized to pursue. Insider Note: In real assessments, Layers 5 and 6 expose the maturity gap fastest. Most teams’ shipping agents can describe their model and their orchestration framework in detail, then

EU AI Act Hiring Map

AXIPRO STUDY New Study: Europe is hiring AI builders faster than AI governance professionals Axipro analyzed 3,519 AI-related job postings across eight EU countries. For every professional hired to keep AI lawful, safe and accountable, nearly seven were hired to build more of it, and the gap is widest exactly where you’d least expect. Take EU AI ACT READINESS QUIZZ 16 AI Builders : 1 AI Governors Sweden — Europe’s widest AI governance gap 3,519 Job Postings Analyzed 8 EU Countries 2 Role Categories: Builders vs Governors July 2026 Date of Job Postings Analyzed The findings Finding 1: Sweden hires 16 AI builders for every 1 person to govern them Throughout our data-set we found the same pattern across all eight countries: the more a nation hires to build AI, the less it hires to govern it. France runs eleven builders to every governor. Even Ireland, the most balanced in Europe, looks responsible mainly because the US tech giants headquartered there import global-governance discipline under overlapping DORA and AI Act pressure.  3.5→16 builders hired per governor, Europe’s most balanced country to its least. Ireland 3.5 Germany 5.7 Spain 6.0 Italy 7.1 Netherlands 7.2 Belgium 7.9 France 11.4 Sweden 16:1 0 4 8 12 16 Builders hired per AI governor Source: Axipro, 2026 Sweden has one of the strongest engineering cultures in Europe. It also carries the widest governance gap we measured: sixteen AI builders hired for every person hired to govern them. France sits close behind at eleven to one. The most balanced country, Ireland at 3.5 to one, looks responsible for a reason that has little to do with virtue. The US tech giants headquartered in Dublin import global governance discipline, and they do it under the combined weight of the AI Act and DORA, the EU financial-sector resilience regime in force since January 2025. Engineering strength does nothing to close a governance gap, and it may widen it. A country that ships AI faster produces more systems that fall under the Act’s scope and, on this evidence, fewer people positioned to document, monitor, and defend them. Being good at building AI offers no protection against governing it badly. The countries most confident in their technical talent are running the largest deficit against the law. Explore AI governance hiring by country Click any country to see how many AI builders it hires for every governance professional, and where it ranks against the rest of Europe. Germany — 5.7 builders per governorDE France — 11.4 builders per governorFR Spain — 6.0 builders per governorES Italy — 7.1 builders per governorIT Netherlands — 7.2 builders per governorNL Belgium — 7.9 builders per governorBE Ireland — 3.5 builders per governorIE Sweden — 16 builders per governorSE 3.5 — balanced 16 — widest gap Source: Axipro, 2026 Sweden 16builders for every governance professional Rank 1 of 8 · 20 governance roles vs 319 builder roles posted Only 30% of the AI governance roles name the AI Act Share this Embed this map Copy & paste — links back to Axipro Copy embed code Branded, one paste, backlink included. × Share this country insight Share this AI governance gap X / Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Bluesky Email Copy link Choose a platform or copy the link. A view of the same country-level dataset behind the interactive map: governance roles, builder roles, builder-to-governance ratio, and the share of governance postings that name the EU AI Act. AI governance jobs Europe statistics by country: governance roles, builder roles, builder-to-governance ratio and AI Act mention percentage. Country Governance roles Builder roles Builder-to-governance ratio AI Act mention % Sweden 20 319 16.0:1 30.0% France 39 443 11.4:1 38.5% Belgium 38 299 7.9:1 39.5% Netherlands 61 439 7.2:1 31.1% Italy 40 284 7.1:1 45.0% Spain 64 384 6.0:1 28.1% Germany 88 501 5.7:1 27.3% Ireland 96 335 3.5:1 14.6% Source: Axipro analysis of AI builder, governance and compliance job postings across eight European countries. “AI Act mention %” is the share of governance postings that explicitly name the EU AI Act. Finding 2: The law nobody names. Most AI governance jobs still do not mention the EU AI Act Europe spent years drafting the AI Act. It cleared the European Parliament, survived the Digital Omnibus revisions, and now carries penalties that reach €35 million or 7% of global turnover for the most serious breaches, a ceiling that makes GDPR fines look modest. Yet fewer than three in ten of the governance roles created to handle it actually name the law in the job description. Among builder roles, the figure collapses to one in twenty-five. More than 7 in 10 Governance job descriptions do not mention the EU AI Act. This number rises to 9 in 10 for all AI job descriptions. Despite hiring for governance, risk, privacy, and compliance roles, most employers are not yet translating the EU AI Act into explicit job requirements. That disconnect should stop you. The people being hired to make Europe compliant are, for the most part, not being hired against the Act by name. They are titled around adjacent ideas: risk, ethics, model validation, data protection. Some of that work will map onto the Act’s requirements. Much of it will not, because a role written without the regulation in view rarely produces the conformity assessments, technical documentation, and human-oversight structures the Act specifically demands. Readiness is even thinner than the headcount suggests. Simply counting governance hires overstates how many people are actually working the law. What job descriptions actually name The EU AI Act is visible in governance roles — but still absent from most job ads. Across the laws and frameworks most relevant to AI governance hiring, the EU AI Act appears in fewer than three in ten governance postings, and only 4% of builder postings. Law or framework Governance roles naming it Builder roles naming it All roles naming it Governance mentions EU AI Act 28.5% 4.0% 7.6% 127 GDPR 26.9% 5.7% 9.6% 120 ISO 27001 11.4% 1.3% 2.8% 51