What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A&A-06 Remediation?

Corrective action plan listing each finding with risk rating, owner and due date; Finding tracker or GRC tool export showing status changes over time; Periodic remediation status reports sent to management or the audit committee; Closure evidence and retest results for remediated findings; Risk register updates reflecting changes in finding risk ratings.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A&A-06?

Findings tracked without risk-based prioritisation

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

`A&A-06` Remediation

A risk-based corrective action plan for fixing audit findings is approved, documented, communicated, applied, evaluated and kept current, and the state of remediation is reviewed at regular intervals and reported to the stakeholders concerned.

Source: CSA CCM v4.1, A&A-06. 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

Finding tracker or GRC tool export showing status changes over time · Document repository

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Closure evidence and retest results for remediated findings · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Corrective action plan listing each finding with risk rating, owner and due date · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Periodic remediation status reports sent to management or the audit committee · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk register updates reflecting changes in finding risk ratings · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Document repository on a schedule; put the documents under version control with an owner and review date, and log each review as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Findings tracked without risk-based prioritisation
Status reported only at the next annual audit rather than at regular intervals
Findings closed on owner assertion with no validation of the fix

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-05 Audit Management Process · AIS-01 Application and Interface Security Policy and Procedures