What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on INQ-04 Limiting Access to or Disclosure of Data in Investigation Requests?

Extraction specification showing the scope filters applied to a disclosure; Records of anonymisation or pseudonymisation carried out before handover; Review evidence confirming unrelated tenants were excluded from the extract; Procedure describing how to delimit data when the request scope is unclear.

What is the most common gap auditors find on INQ-04?

Whole datasets or shared tables handed over because filtering was difficult

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

`INQ-04` Limiting Access to or Disclosure of Data in Investigation Requests

Operate procedures that confine a government agency to the data actually covered by its investigation request, and where the data cannot be clearly delimited, anonymise or pseudonymise it so only the customers under investigation can be identified.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), INQ-04. 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

Records of anonymisation or pseudonymisation carried out before handover · Data governance / DLP tooling
Review evidence confirming unrelated tenants were excluded from the extract · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Extraction specification showing the scope filters applied to a disclosure · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Procedure describing how to delimit data when the request scope is unclear · 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

Whole datasets or shared tables handed over because filtering was difficult
Other tenants' records included in an export without redaction
Pseudonymisation applied but the reidentification key supplied alongside it
No documented check that the extract matches the scope of the request

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-03 Conditions for Access to or Disclosure of Data in Investigation Requests · OIS-01 Information Security Management System (ISMS)