What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on RA-9 Criticality Analysis (RA-9)?

SSP RA-9 statement identifying critical components and functions from the criticality analysis and the SDLC points where it is repeated; Criticality analysis document listing critical components and their supply chain protections; Penetration test report with retest evidence; Threat intelligence feed subscriptions and triage workflow; Risk acceptance memos signed by accountable executives; Risk assessment methodology approved by leadership.

What is the most common gap auditors find on RA-9?

Scan coverage gaps for containerised and ephemeral workloads

FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) · RA - Risk Assessment

`RA-9` Criticality Analysis (RA-9)

Criticality Analysis. Identify critical system components and functions by performing a criticality analysis for organization-defined systems, system components, or system services at organization-defined decision points in the system development life cycle

Source: FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline), RA-9. 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 FedRAMP High (NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 baseline) in the compliance library.

A FedRAMP baseline is a subset of NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, enhancements included.

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

Penetration test report with retest evidence · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

SSP RA-9 statement identifying critical components and functions from the criticality analysis and the SDLC points where it is repeated · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Criticality analysis document listing critical components and their supply chain protections · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Threat intelligence feed subscriptions and triage workflow · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk acceptance memos signed by accountable executives · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk assessment methodology approved by leadership · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Risk register with likelihood, impact, and treatment owners · 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

Scan coverage gaps for containerised and ephemeral workloads
Threat intelligence consumed but not operationalised into detections
High severity vulnerabilities exceed remediation SLA without risk acceptance
Risk register entries lack named owner or due date

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

RA-7 Risk Response · SA-1 Policy and Procedures