What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CPS 230 para 47 Required content of the service provider policy, including fourth parties?

Policy sections covering onboarding, monitoring, substitution and exit; Fourth-party identification and risk approach for critical operations; Register extract showing known fourth parties for material providers supporting critical operations.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CPS 230 para 47?

Policy silent on substitution or exit

APRA CPS 230 · Management of service provider arrangements (paras 46 to 61)

`CPS 230 para 47` Required content of the service provider policy, including fourth parties

The policy must set out the entity's approach to (a) how agreements with material service providers are entered, monitored, substituted and exited; (b) managing the risks of material service providers; and (c) managing the risks of fourth parties (parties a service provider relies on) on which material service providers depend when delivering a critical operation for the entity.

Source: APRA CPS 230, CPS 230 para 47. 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

moderate

to go live

Vendor register / contract repository

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

Register extract showing known fourth parties for material providers supporting critical operations · Vendor register / contract repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Policy sections covering onboarding, monitoring, substitution and exit · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Fourth-party identification and risk approach for critical operations · Vendor register / contract repository

First move

Start with the 1 of 3 artefacts that already live in a system (Vendor register / contract repository); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Policy silent on substitution or exit
Fourth parties not identified for providers supporting critical operations

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 46 Comprehensive service provider management policy · CPS 230 para 48 Register of material service providers and management of their risks