What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A&A-05 Audit Management Process?

Audit methodology document referencing the auditing standards it follows (for example IIA standards or ISAE 3000); Audit programme and work papers for a sampled audit, from planning through conclusion; Issued audit reports with management responses and remediation dates; Evidence repository showing retained supporting evidence for past audits; Quality review or peer review of completed audit files.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A&A-05?

Methodology exists but does not state which auditing standards it follows

CSA CCM v4.1 · A&A - Audit & Assurance

`A&A-05` Audit Management Process

A defined audit management process, consistent with relevant auditing standards, is put in place and used to plan audits, analyse risk, assess security controls, reach conclusions, schedule remediation, produce reports and revisit earlier reports and their evidence.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, A&A-05. 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 CSA CCM v4.1 in the compliance library.

Version 4.1 adds 11 controls (among them API security, log sanitisation and a service bill of materials) and renumbers several domains. CSA accepts v4.0.x during its transition; if your STAR assessment is still on v4.0.1, check the numbering against it.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Issued audit reports with management responses and remediation dates · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Evidence repository showing retained supporting evidence for past audits · Source control / CI pipeline
Quality review or peer review of completed audit files · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Audit methodology document referencing the auditing standards it follows (for example IIA standards or ISAE 3000) · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Audit programme and work papers for a sampled audit, from planning through conclusion · 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

Methodology exists but does not state which auditing standards it follows
Past reports and evidence not revisited when planning the next audit
Conclusions issued without documented work papers supporting 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

A&A-04 Requirements Compliance · A&A-06 Remediation