What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on CPS 234 para 29 Escalate control deficiencies that cannot be fixed promptly?

Deficiency register with ageing and remediation due dates; Escalation criteria defining when a deficiency is overdue or cannot be fixed in time; Board or executive committee papers reporting unremediated deficiencies; Risk acceptance records signed by the right authority; Minutes recording decisions on escalated deficiencies.

What is the most common gap auditors find on CPS 234 para 29?

Overdue findings stay in an IT tracker and never reach senior management

APRA CPS 234 · Testing control effectiveness (paras 27 to 31)

`CPS 234 para 29` Escalate control deficiencies that cannot be fixed promptly

When testing reveals deficiencies in security controls that the entity cannot fix in good time, the entity escalates and reports them to the Board or to senior management.

Source: APRA CPS 234, CPS 234 para 29. 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 234 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

Risk acceptance records signed by the right authority · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Minutes recording decisions on escalated deficiencies · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Deficiency register with ageing and remediation due dates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Escalation criteria defining when a deficiency is overdue or cannot be fixed in time · Document repository
Board or executive committee papers reporting unremediated deficiencies · 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

Overdue findings stay in an IT tracker and never reach senior management
No definition of what timely remediation means
Risk acceptances signed at too junior a level

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 234 para 28 Assess reliance on third-party control testing · CPS 234 para 30 Skilled and independent testers