What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on AC.L2-3.1.2 Transaction & Function Control?

Role definitions mapping roles to permitted transactions and functions; Application and system permission matrices as configured; Approval records for role assignment per user; Evidence of enforcement testing on a restricted role.

What is the most common gap auditors find on AC.L2-3.1.2?

Access granted at system level with no function-level restriction

CMMC 2.0 · Access Control

`AC.L2-3.1.2` Transaction & Function Control

Confine each authorized user to the specific transactions and functions their role permits, so privileges bound what can be executed and not merely whether access is granted.

Source: CMMC 2.0, AC.L2-3.1.2. 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 CMMC 2.0 in the compliance library.

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

Evidence of enforcement testing on a restricted role · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Approval records for role assignment per user · Identity provider / directory

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Role definitions mapping roles to permitted transactions and functions · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Application and system permission matrices as configured · 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

Access granted at system level with no function-level restriction
Roles defined on paper but not enforced in the application
Broad default roles assigned for convenience

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

AC.L2-3.1.1 Authorized Access Control · AC.L2-3.1.3 Control CUI Flow