What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 164.308(a)(7)(ii)(E) Applications and Data Criticality Analysis (Addressable)?

Application tier list; Data classification register; Criticality-driven protection mapping; Annual review of tiers; Documented addressable-specification decision: whether it is reasonable and appropriate in your environment, and if not, why, with the equivalent alternative adopted where one is.

HIPAA Security Rule · Administrative

`164.308(a)(7)(ii)(E)` Applications and Data Criticality Analysis (Addressable)

Assess the relative criticality of applications and data in support of other contingency components. NIST recommends tiered classification driving backup, DR, and protection investments.

Source: HIPAA Security Rule, 164.308(a)(7)(ii)(E). 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 HIPAA Security Rule in the compliance library.

Scope: Addressable, not optional: assess whether it is reasonable and appropriate; implement it, or document why not and adopt an equivalent alternative where reasonable (45 CFR 164.306(d)(3)).

Applies to covered entities and business associates. An addressable specification can be met by a documented, reasonable alternative.

artefacts

held by a system

at each review

hard

to go live

Document 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

none for this control

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Annual review of tiers · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Application tier list · Document repository
Data classification register · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Criticality-driven protection mapping · Document repository
Documented addressable-specification decision: whether it is reasonable and appropriate in your environment, and if not, why, with the equivalent alternative adopted where one is · 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

All systems treated equally
Criticality assigned by IT alone without business input
No refresh after acquisitions

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

164.308(a)(7)(ii)(D) Testing and Revision Procedures (Addressable) · 164.308(a)(8) Evaluation (Standard)