What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-05 Risk assessment, categorisation and prioritisation of changes?

Risk assessment entry attached to each of a sample of changes; Category and priority definitions applied to changes; Trace showing the assigned category actually drove testing depth and approval level; Advance information sent to customers ahead of top-category changes.

What is the most common gap auditors find on DEV-05?

Every change assigned the same category regardless of its likely impact

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Procurement, Development and Modification of Information Systems

`DEV-05` Risk assessment, categorisation and prioritisation of changes

Assess each planned change for its potential effect on the system components involved and assign it a risk category and priority, which then determine how deeply it is tested and what approvals it must carry.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), DEV-05. 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

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 assessment entry attached to each of a sample of changes · Ticketing / ITSM

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Category and priority definitions applied to changes · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Trace showing the assigned category actually drove testing depth and approval level · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Advance information sent to customers ahead of top-category changes · 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

Every change assigned the same category regardless of its likely impact
The assessment is completed after deployment purely to satisfy the record
Top-category changes released without the advance customer information the contract requires

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

DEV-04 Safety training and awareness programme regarding continuous software delivery and associated systems… · DEV-06 Testing changes