What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.1.3.6 Providing mechanism to object to PII processing?

Objection mechanism appropriate to each service channel; Register of the objection rights that apply, by jurisdiction and processing type; Information given to individuals about when they may object; Objection records and evidence processing actually stopped.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.1.3.6?

Objection conflated with consent withdrawal, so objections against non consent based processing have no route

ISO/IEC 27701:2025 · Annex A Table A.1 PIMS controls for PII controllers

`A.1.3.6` Providing mechanism to object to PII processing

The organization must give individuals a way to object to their data being processed. It must document the legal and regulatory rules on objection, for example objection to direct marketing, tell individuals when they are entitled to object, and offer a mechanism that suits the kind of service, so that a service delivered online lets people object online.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.1.3.6. 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/IEC 27701:2025 in the compliance library.

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

Objection records and evidence processing actually stopped · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Objection mechanism appropriate to each service channel · Document repository
Register of the objection rights that apply, by jurisdiction and processing type · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Information given to individuals about when they may object · Document repository

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

Objection conflated with consent withdrawal, so objections against non consent based processing have no route
Marketing suppression applied in one system while other systems continue to select the individual
Objection right described in the notice with no mechanism behind it
Objections recorded as complaints and closed rather than actioned as a standing instruction

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

A.1.3.5 Providing mechanism to modify or withdraw consent · A.1.3.7 Access, correction or erasure