What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on OIS-06 Risk Management Policy?

Approved risk management procedure setting out method, rating scales and prioritisation rules; Risk criteria table defining likelihood and impact bands and the acceptance thresholds; Risk record template or tool configuration that forces a named owner on every entry; Approval and version history of the risk methodology document.

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

No stated acceptance criteria, so each risk is judged ad hoc

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Organisation of Information Security

`OIS-06` Risk Management Policy

Document, communicate and make available a risk management procedure that covers identification of confidentiality, integrity, availability and authenticity risks with named risk owners, likelihood and impact analysis, evaluation against defined acceptance criteria, treatment with residual risk acceptance, and recording of the activities performed.

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

easy

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

Approved risk management procedure setting out method, rating scales and prioritisation rules · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk record template or tool configuration that forces a named owner on every entry · Cloud console / configuration management
Approval and version history of the risk methodology document · Document repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Risk criteria table defining likelihood and impact bands and the acceptance thresholds · Document repository

First move

Automate the pull from your Policy repository / GRC workspace. Version-controlled policy set with approval metadata; review dates tracked as records, not a calendar note.

Common gaps auditors find

No stated acceptance criteria, so each risk is judged ad hoc
Ownership recorded at department level instead of naming an accountable individual
Method addresses confidentiality alone and omits authenticity and availability
Procedure written but never distributed to the staff expected to apply it

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

OIS-05 Contact with Relevant Government Agencies and Interest Groups · OIS-07 Application of the Risk Management Policy