EvidenceSheet

Art.8 Identification

Financial entities identify, classify and document their business functions that rely on ICT, the related roles and responsibilities, the information and ICT assets behind them and their dependencies, reviewing that classification at least yearly; they identify sources of ICT risk continuously (including risk flowing to and from other financial entities), assess cyber threats and vulnerabilities, review risk scenarios at least yearly, map critical assets, configurations and interdependencies, document processes that depend on ICT third-party providers, and keep inventories updated after every major change. Two duties apply only to entities other than microenterprises: a risk assessment on each major change to network and information systems or to the processes behind ICT-supported functions (Art. 8(3)), and an ICT risk assessment of legacy systems at least yearly and before and after connecting new technologies or systems (Art. 8(7)). 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.8. 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.

4
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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

  • Change-triggered risk assessments and yearly legacy-system risk assessments (entities other than microenterprises) · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Inventory of business functions that rely on ICT, with their information and ICT assets, criticality classification, dependency map and the yearly classification review · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Register of ICT risk sources, threat and vulnerability assessments and the yearly risk-scenario review · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • List of processes depending on ICT third-party providers and of interconnections supporting critical or important functions · Vendor register / contract repository

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.7 ICT systems, protocols and tools · Art.9 Protection and prevention