What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CPS 230 para 59 Monitor material arrangements and report to senior management?

Service level performance reports per material arrangement; Periodic control effectiveness assessment of each material provider (assurance reports, SOC reports, on-site reviews); Contract compliance reviews covering both parties' obligations; Senior management reports on material arrangements.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CPS 230 para 59?

Monitoring tracks SLAs but not control effectiveness

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

`CPS 230 para 59` Monitor material arrangements and report to senior management

The entity must monitor its material arrangements and make sure senior management gets reporting on them proportionate to the nature and use of the service. Monitoring must include regular assessment of (a) performance against agreed service levels; (b) how effective the controls over the provider risks are; and (c) whether both parties comply with the agreement. For limbs (a) and (c) only: Para 57 can exempt the arrangement (Attachment category provider on standardised terms or no formal agreement), and APRA can exempt it in writing under para 58.

Source: APRA CPS 230, CPS 230 para 59. 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

SIEM / log platform

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

Service level performance reports per material arrangement · SIEM / log platform
Periodic control effectiveness assessment of each material provider (assurance reports, SOC reports, on-site reviews) · SIEM / log platform
Contract compliance reviews covering both parties' obligations · SIEM / log platform
Senior management reports on material arrangements · SIEM / log platform

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

none for this control

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

Monitoring tracks SLAs but not control effectiveness
Exempt arrangements dropped from control effectiveness monitoring, which para 57 does not exempt

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 57 Exemption for Attachment-category providers on standardised terms or no formal agreement · CPS 230 para 60 Notify APRA of critical-operation agreements (20 business days) and before material offshoring