What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on PI-01 Documentation and safety of input and output interfaces?

Published interface specification describing how customers retrieve their data; Version record tying that specification to the release currently running in production; Endpoint protocol settings for the interfaces offered to customers; Worked extraction performed end to end through the documented interface.

What is the most common gap auditors find on PI-01?

Specification reflects an earlier release and omits fields that production now returns

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Portability and Interoperability

`PI-01` Documentation and safety of input and output interfaces

Offer documented inbound and outbound interfaces that let customer systems and other services retrieve data over standardised protocols preserving confidentiality and integrity, with documentation detailed enough for customer specialists and kept aligned to the productive release.

Source: BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue), PI-01. 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

Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

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

Endpoint protocol settings for the interfaces offered to customers · Endpoint management (MDM / EDR)

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Version record tying that specification to the release currently running in production · Source control / CI pipeline

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Published interface specification describing how customers retrieve their data · Document repository
Worked extraction performed end to end through the documented interface · Document repository

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Specification reflects an earlier release and omits fields that production now returns
Data can be exported only by raising a support request rather than through an interface
Interface published on an untrusted network path without the encryption the policy requires

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

OPS-24 Separation of Datasets in the Cloud Infrastructure · PI-02 Contractual agreements for the provision of data