What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on 9.3.3 Management review outputs?

Minutes recording decisions against each required output area; Actions with owners and dates traceable from the decisions; Communication records to relevant interested parties; Evidence of the resulting change in the BCMS artefacts.

What is the most common gap auditors find on 9.3.3?

Minutes that record discussion but no decisions

ISO 22301:2019 · Performance evaluation, ISO 22301:2019

`9.3.3` Management review outputs

The review must lead to decisions on chances for continual improvement and on any changes that would make the BCMS more efficient and effective. These cover changes to scope; updates to the business impact analysis, the risk assessment, the strategies, the solutions and the plans; changes to procedures and controls so they respond to internal or external issues; and the way control effectiveness is to be measured. Keep documented evidence of the outcome, tell the relevant interested parties about it, and act on it as appropriate.

Source: ISO 22301:2019, 9.3.3. 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

moderate

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

Evidence of the resulting change in the BCMS artefacts · Policy repository / GRC workspace

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

Minutes recording decisions against each required output area · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Communication records to relevant interested parties · Policy repository / GRC workspace

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Actions with owners and dates traceable from the decisions · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Policy repository / GRC workspace); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Minutes that record discussion but no decisions
Decisions on how control effectiveness will be measured omitted, so measurement never improves
Results not communicated beyond the review attendees
Actions raised and then closed administratively at the next review without evidence

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

9.3.2 Management review input · 10.1 Nonconformity and corrective action