What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on INQ-02 Informing Cloud Customers about Investigation Requests?

Notification records showing the date each affected customer was informed; Documented justification for any case where notification was withheld; Legal analysis of the disclosure prohibition relied on to stay silent; Procedure defining the notification timeframe and the approving role.

What is the most common gap auditors find on INQ-02?

Notification withheld by default whenever an agency requests confidentiality informally

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Dealing with Investigation Requests from Government Agencies

`INQ-02` Informing Cloud Customers about Investigation Requests

Tell the affected cloud customers about a government investigation request without undue delay, withholding notice only where the legal basis invoked forbids disclosure or where there are clear indications of unlawful activity connected to use of the service.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), INQ-02. 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

Notification records showing the date each affected customer was informed · Document repository
Legal analysis of the disclosure prohibition relied on to stay silent · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented justification for any case where notification was withheld · Document repository
Procedure defining the notification timeframe and the approving role · 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

Notification withheld by default whenever an agency requests confidentiality informally
No record explaining why a notification exception was applied
Customers told only after the data had already been handed over
Silence maintained after the disclosure prohibition has lapsed

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

INQ-01 Legal Assessment of Investigative Inquiries · INQ-03 Conditions for Access to or Disclosure of Data in Investigation Requests