What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on DEV-06 Testing changes?

Test plans and outcomes for a sample of changes drawn across risk categories; Qualification evidence for testers or the specification of the automated test tooling; Defect severity criteria and the ratings applied to findings; Remediation tickets for defects that blocked a deployment decision.

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

Identical test depth applied to trivial and to high risk changes

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

`DEV-06` Testing changes

Test each change during development and deployment to a depth matching its risk rating, using suitably qualified staff or state-of-the-art automated testing, involve customers where contracts require it, and rate and remediate identified defects against defined severity criteria.

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

Ticketing / ITSM

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

Remediation tickets for defects that blocked a deployment decision · Ticketing / ITSM

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Qualification evidence for testers or the specification of the automated test tooling · Ticketing / ITSM

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Test plans and outcomes for a sample of changes drawn across risk categories · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Defect severity criteria and the ratings applied to findings · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Identical test depth applied to trivial and to high risk changes
Findings logged without a severity rating, so no criterion exists for the deployment decision
Known defects deferred indefinitely with no remediation deadline attached

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-05 Risk assessment, categorisation and prioritisation of changes · DEV-07 Logging of changes