What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on HR-06 Confidentiality agreements?

Documented analysis of the protection requirements the undertaking wording is built from; Executed confidentiality undertakings for a sample of employees, suppliers and service providers; Annual review record of those requirements together with the resulting decision; Proof of reconfirmation obtained from signatories after the last wording change.

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

Wording copied from a generic template with no traceable requirements behind it

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Human Resources

`HR-06` Confidentiality agreements

Base confidentiality undertakings for employees, external service providers and suppliers on documented requirements for protecting confidential information and operational detail, obtain acceptance at contract signature or before customer data access, review the requirements at least annually, and reissue and reconfirm updated undertakings.

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

hard

to go live

Document repository

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

Documented analysis of the protection requirements the undertaking wording is built from · Document repository
Annual review record of those requirements together with the resulting decision · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Executed confidentiality undertakings for a sample of employees, suppliers and service providers · HR system / LMS
Proof of reconfirmation obtained from signatories after the last wording change · Document repository

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

Wording copied from a generic template with no traceable requirements behind it
Suppliers began work before their undertaking was executed
Requirements updated but existing signatories never asked to reconfirm the new terms
No register showing who signed which version of the undertaking

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

HR-05 Responsibilities in the event of termination or change of employment · IDM-01 Policy for user accounts and access rights