What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AM-06 Asset Classification and Labelling?

Classification scheme defining the graded levels for each of the four protection objectives; Register export showing the protection level held against each asset and who determined it; Photographs or screen captures of the labels actually applied to media and equipment; Guidance mapping information types to the correct level under the scheme.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AM-06?

Scheme grades confidentiality alone and omits integrity, availability and authenticity

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Asset Management

`AM-06` Asset Classification and Labelling

Classify assets and label them where practicable, with the responsible owners determining protection needs under one uniform scheme that defines levels for confidentiality, integrity, availability and authenticity, reflecting the information each asset processes, stores or transmits.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), AM-06. 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 BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) in the compliance library.

The edition of the catalogue is not stamped here; check the edition your attestation is issued against.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

moderate

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

Register export showing the protection level held against each asset and who determined it · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Classification scheme defining the graded levels for each of the four protection objectives · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Photographs or screen captures of the labels actually applied to media and equipment · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Guidance mapping information types to the correct level under the scheme · Document repository

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Policy repository / GRC workspace); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Scheme grades confidentiality alone and omits integrity, availability and authenticity
Protection levels assigned centrally by a central team instead of by the asset owner
Almost all assets sit at the lowest level because no determination was performed
Physical media carry no marking, so the handling rules cannot be applied in practice

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

AM-05 Commitment to Permissible Use, Safe Handling and Return of Assets · BCM-01 Top management responsibility