What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on Art.28 Processor?

A processor inventory reconciled against the vendor register or accounts payable, so no processor is missing from it; The Article 28(3) contract for each processor, checked clause by clause against the eight stipulations the Article names; Due diligence evidence gathered before appointment showing sufficient guarantees, distinct from the signed contract; The sub-processor authorisation position for each processor, the current sub-processor list, and evidence changes were notified; Audit or assurance rights exercised in practice, such as a report reviewed with findings tracked, and end of service deletion certificates.

What is the most common gap auditors find on Art.28?

The processor's own standard terms accepted, which commonly omit the audit right, the deletion choice and the instruction infringement notice

GDPR · Chapter IV - Controller and Processor

`Art.28` Processor

Use only processors providing sufficient guarantees to implement appropriate technical and organisational measures such that the processing meets the Regulation's requirements and protects the rights of the data subject. A processor must not engage another processor without the controller's prior specific or general written authorisation, and under a general authorisation must inform the controller of intended additions or replacements so the controller can object. The processing must be governed by a written contract or other legal act binding the processor to the controller, setting out the subject matter and duration, the nature and purpose, the type of personal data, the categories of data subjects and the controller's obligations and rights, and stipulating that the processor processes only on documented controller instructions including as to transfers, ensures persons authorised to process are under a duty of confidentiality, takes all Article 32 measures, respects the sub-processor conditions, assists the controller in responding to data subject rights requests, assists with Articles 32 to 36, deletes or returns all personal data at the controller's choice at the end of the service and deletes existing copies unless law requires retention, and makes available all information needed to demonstrate compliance and allows for and contributes to audits and inspections. The processor must immediately inform the controller if it considers an instruction infringes data protection law. The same obligations must be imposed on any sub-processor, and the initial processor remains fully liable for the sub-processor's performance. A processor that determines purposes and means is a controller for that processing.

Source: GDPR, Art.28. 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 GDPR in the compliance library.

Many articles apply only where their condition is met (a data protection officer under Article 37, an impact assessment under Article 35, a representative under Article 27); the condition is in each statement.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Vendor register / contract repository

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

A processor inventory reconciled against the vendor register or accounts payable, so no processor is missing from it · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

The sub-processor authorisation position for each processor, the current sub-processor list, and evidence changes were notified · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

The Article 28(3) contract for each processor, checked clause by clause against the eight stipulations the Article names · Vendor register / contract repository
Due diligence evidence gathered before appointment showing sufficient guarantees, distinct from the signed contract · Vendor register / contract repository
Audit or assurance rights exercised in practice, such as a report reviewed with findings tracked, and end of service deletion certificates · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Mostly documents and reviews. Pull the 1 system-held artefact from your Identity provider / directory 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

The processor's own standard terms accepted, which commonly omit the audit right, the deletion choice and the instruction infringement notice
A processor inventory that misses tools adopted directly by individual teams, which is where undocumented processing usually sits
Sufficient guarantees evidenced only by the existence of the contract, with no assessment carried out before appointment
Sub-processor lists published by the processor and never actually reviewed, so the right to object is theoretical

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.27 Representatives of controllers or processors not established in the Union · Art.29 Processing under the authority of the controller or processor