EvidenceSheet

CCR 7222 Answer requests to access ADMT information

From the Article 11 date, on a verified request the business must explain in plain language the specific purpose for which ADMT was used about the consumer, the logic and parameters behind the output for that consumer, the output itself, how it was used to reach the decision (and any planned future use), the bar on retaliation, and how to exercise other rights. Existing request channels may be used, the response follows the section 7021 timelines and verification rules, denials must be explained, delivery must be secure, and frequent use (more than four times in 12 months) may be answered at aggregate level. Service providers and contractors must help.

Source: CCPA/CPRA, CCR 7222. 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 CCPA/CPRA in the compliance library.

Applies only to a business that meets one of the thresholds in Cal. Civ. Code 1798.140(d).

3
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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

  • Per-consumer output records retained to support responses · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Access response template covering purpose, logic, output and decision use · Document repository
  • Verification record at the reasonably high standard before release · 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

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

CCR 7221 Offer an opt-out of ADMT, or a qualifying human appeal