What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on SP-01 Documentation, communication and provision of policies and instructions?

Policy hierarchy map showing how each instruction derives from the top level security policy; Document control register recording version, author, approving body and effective date; Authoring template that fixes the mandatory section headings for every security document; Repository permissions or access log proving external personnel can retrieve applicable instructions.

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

Working copies kept on personal drives outside the controlled repository

BSI C5 (121-criteria catalogue) · C5: Security Policies and Instructions

`SP-01` Documentation, communication and provision of policies and instructions

Derive policies and instructions from the security policy in a uniform structure stating objectives, scope, roles with qualification and deputy rules, dependencies on customers and subservice organisations, execution steps and legal duties, version control and approve them, and issue them to internal and external staff.

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

Identity provider / directory

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

Repository permissions or access log proving external personnel can retrieve applicable instructions · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Policy hierarchy map showing how each instruction derives from the top level security policy · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Document control register recording version, author, approving body and effective date · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Authoring template that fixes the mandatory section headings for every security document · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

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

Common gaps auditors find

Working copies kept on personal drives outside the controlled repository
Each document follows its own layout so mandatory sections are missing from some
Deputy and substitution arrangements for security roles are stated nowhere
Subcontracted staff have no practical route to reach the instructions binding on them

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

SIM-05 Evaluation and learning process · SP-02 Review and Approval of Policies and Instructions