CPS 234 para 31 Review the sufficiency of the testing program
The entity reviews whether its testing program is sufficient at least once a year, and also whenever its information assets or business environment change materially.
Source: APRA CPS 234, CPS 234 para 31. 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.
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
- Trigger log showing reviews prompted by material change (new systems, cloud migration, acquisition) · SIEM / log platform
periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review
- Annual testing program review report with conclusions and changes · Document repository
- Management or committee approval of the revised program · Document repository
- Coverage gap analysis completed during the review · Document repository
- Evidence the review considered the paragraph 27 factors · Document repository
governing documentDocuments that govern the control
none for this control
First move
Common gaps auditors find
- Program reviewed only at budget time
- Material change occurs with no out-of-cycle review
- Review confirms the existing schedule without analysing coverage
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 sheetCPS 234 para 30 Skilled and independent testers · CPS 234 para 32 Internal audit review of control design and operation