How to standardize across teams when industry guidelines are ambiguous
Recent updates have replaced clear maturity levels with sprawling checklists that leave too much room for interpretation. Because teams must now justify how their actions meet a vague intent rather than following explicit rules, internal staff and external auditors often read the exact same requirements differently. This ambiguity prevents standardization, increases required documentation tenfold, and makes it much harder to show clients what is actually required to improve.
What the numbers show
Counted from the threads quoted below. How we count
- This comes up 127.4× more often in r/msp than across the site as a whole.
What people tried
Every workaround mentioned in the threads below. We haven’t tested any of them — and nobody here is claiming they worked.
Found another way around this?
Share your steps and trade-offs so fellow engineers don't have to reinvent the wheel. No account required.
- 1Writing a custom internal decision matrix that sits on top of the official handbook.Did this help you?
- 2Creating internal instructions with strict numerical thresholds to trigger reviews automatically.Did this help you?
- 3Moving towards alternative, right-sized standards like SMB1001.Did this help you?
- 4Creating an internal map that ties each new subjective control to actual evidence, using the old framework as a translation layer.Did this help you?
- 5Implementing a custom standard that combines technical controls from multiple frameworks to create a complete approach.Did this help you?
- 6Physically testing controls (e.g., trying to run an unsigned binary) to demonstrate security to clients instead of relying purely on policy documents.Did this help you?
In their words
Unedited, grouped by where they were said, most upvoted first within each place, each linked to the thread it came from.
“So far, it really looks like a step away from a useful framework in which we could measure maturity and recommend changes, to a NIST style checklist which will end up sprawling across multiple sheets in excel.”source ↗
“It's a real shame they've gone from something that was "You must do X with Y" to "Do whatever you feel like meets what we say"”source ↗
“Each auditor will have their own reccomendations on the wordering, so its going to be a lot of justification. Also increasing the amount of documentation 10 fold with testing records needing to be client specific and on file....”source ↗
“we've gone from a model where it was clear what is required to achieve a maturity level, to a great big checklist of ambigiuity.”source ↗
“If we’re moving from measurable security improvements towards “document why you think this meets the intent”, that feels like a backwards step.”source ↗
“The maturity levels were the useful part for me, because you could show a client where they sat and what ML2 would actually take. A list of outcomes without levels makes that conversation harder.”source ↗
Where this came up
People with this problem also raised
- 7Why are security warning emails so vague?
- 2Why does my manager's communication keep flipping?
- 6How do employer retirement match calculations work?
- 6Why does management give us arbitrary deadlines without explaining why?
- 5Should I switch to the new CPA program or rush the old one?
- 4Where can I find real-world company AI policies and best practices?