EvidenceSheet

Art.6 ICT risk management framework

Financial entities keep a sound, comprehensive and documented ICT risk management framework within their overall risk management system, covering the strategies, policies, procedures, protocols and tools that protect information and ICT assets and physical infrastructure, and including a digital operational resilience strategy (risk tolerance, security objectives, reference architecture, detection, testing and incident communication). The framework is reviewed yearly as a minimum (a microenterprise may instead set its own periodic cycle), and also after major ICT-related incidents and after supervisory instructions or test and audit conclusions, with a review report available to the competent authority on request (Art. 6(5)). Entities other than microenterprises assign ICT risk to an independent control function (Art. 6(4)) and subject the framework to regular internal audit by auditors with ICT expertise and independence, followed by a formal process to remediate critical findings (Art. 6(6) and (7)); microenterprises are outside the internal-audit duty. Applied in proportion to size, risk profile and complexity under Article 4(1). 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.6. 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.

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
2
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

  • Review records triggered by major ICT-related incidents, supervisory instructions or test and audit conclusions, and any review report sent to the authority on request · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • ICT internal audit plan, audit reports on the framework and the tracker for remediation of critical findings (entities other than microenterprises) · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Current ICT risk management framework document with version history showing the yearly review (or the periodic review cycle a microenterprise has set) · Document repository
  • Mandate of the independent ICT risk control function (entities other than microenterprises) · Document repository
  • Digital operational resilience strategy stating ICT risk tolerance, security objectives and key risk metrics · 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

Art.5 Governance and organisation · Art.7 ICT systems, protocols and tools