What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on Art.10 Detection?

Detection tooling configuration showing layered controls, alert thresholds and the criteria that open an incident; Automatic alert routing records to incident response staff; Results of periodic tests of the detection mechanisms; User activity and anomaly monitoring reports; For data reporting service providers only: trade report completeness checks and re-transmission requests.

What is the most common gap auditors find on Art.10?

Alert thresholds set once and never tuned or tested

DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) · DORA Chapter II: ICT Risk Management

`Art.10` Detection

Financial entities have mechanisms, aligned with the Article 17 incident process, that promptly detect anomalous activity, network performance problems and ICT-related incidents and flag possible material single points of failure; the mechanisms provide multiple control layers, alert thresholds and criteria that start incident response, automatic alerts to response staff, and are tested regularly under Article 25. Sufficient resources monitor user activity, anomalies and cyber-attacks. Data reporting service providers, where the entity is one, additionally check trade reports for completeness, omissions and obvious errors and ask for re-transmission (Art. 10(4)). Entities listed in Article 16(1) are outside this Article and follow the simplified framework of Article 16 instead.

Source: DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), Art.10. 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 DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) in the compliance library.

Applies to the financial entities listed in Article 2. Many duties are lighter or absent for microenterprises and for the entities in Article 16(1); each statement says where. Article 19 carries the reporting clocks of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/301, Article 5.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

easy

to go live

SIEM / log platform

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

Detection tooling configuration showing layered controls, alert thresholds and the criteria that open an incident · SIEM / log platform
Automatic alert routing records to incident response staff · SIEM / log platform
User activity and anomaly monitoring reports · SIEM / log platform

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Results of periodic tests of the detection mechanisms · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

For data reporting service providers only: trade report completeness checks and re-transmission requests · Document repository

First move

Automate the pull from your SIEM / log platform. Retention and alert rules exported from the SIEM; review evidence is the closed-alert record with reviewer and time.

Common gaps auditors find

Alert thresholds set once and never tuned or tested
Single points of failure never identified
Monitoring staff too thin to review alerts in time

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

Art.9 Protection and prevention · Art.11 Response and recovery