What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 6.1.1 Determining risks and opportunities?

Risk and opportunity register traceable to specific context issues and party requirements; Statement of the intended BCMS outcomes the register is judged against; Review record showing the register is maintained.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 6.1.1?

Register produced independently of the context analysis, so the two never agree

ISO 22301:2019 · Planning, ISO 22301:2019

`6.1.1` Determining risks and opportunities

Taking the context issues and interested party requirements already identified, determine which risks and opportunities must be addressed so the BCMS achieves its intended outcomes, prevents or reduces undesired effects, and continues to improve.

Source: ISO 22301:2019, 6.1.1. 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 ISO 22301:2019 in the compliance library.

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

Review record showing the register is maintained · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Risk and opportunity register traceable to specific context issues and party requirements · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Statement of the intended BCMS outcomes the register is judged against · 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

Register produced independently of the context analysis, so the two never agree
Only threats recorded, with continual improvement opportunities absent
No stated BCMS outcome, so nothing anchors what counts as a risk

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

6.1 Actions to address risks and opportunities · 6.1.2 Addressing risks and opportunities