What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CPS 230 para 39 Required content of the BCP?

Current BCP with a contents cross-reference to elements (a) to (e); Activation trigger matrix and resource deployment arrangements; Execution risk and dependency assessment covering internal teams and external providers; Crisis communications plan with stakeholder lists and templates.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CPS 230 para 39?

BCP omits the tolerance levels or the register

APRA CPS 230 · Business continuity (paras 33 to 45)

`CPS 230 para 39` Required content of the BCP

The BCP must contain: (a) the critical operations register with the tolerance levels for each; (b) disruption triggers that prompt activation, and arrangements for directing resources once activated; (c) the actions the entity would take to hold critical operations within tolerance during a disruption; (d) an assessment of execution risks, needed resources and preparatory measures, including the key dependencies (internal or external) the BCP actions rely on; and (e) a communications strategy supporting execution.

Source: APRA CPS 230, CPS 230 para 39. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open APRA CPS 230 in the compliance library.

Applies to APRA-regulated entities.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Policy repository / GRC workspace

where the evidence lives

teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Execution risk and dependency assessment covering internal teams and external providers · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Current BCP with a contents cross-reference to elements (a) to (e) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Activation trigger matrix and resource deployment arrangements · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Crisis communications plan with stakeholder lists and templates · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

No system holds this evidence for you: it is people and documents. Reminders and routing to the owner still save time. Put the document under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a record with reviewer and date.

Common gaps auditors find

BCP omits the tolerance levels or the register
No assessment of execution risk or external dependencies

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

CPS 230 para 37 Tolerance levels for each critical operation · CPS 230 para 40 Maintain BCP execution capability; monitor tolerances; report breaches to the Board