What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.1.4.3 Limit processing?

Policy and procedures constraining processing to the identified purposes; Access entitlements demonstrably scoped to purpose rather than to job title; Disclosure rules limiting who outside the organization receives what; Storage periods set per purpose; Compliance monitoring against the limitation, not merely its adoption.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.1.4.3?

Broad internal access granted for convenience, so any employee can read any record

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

`A.1.4.3` Limit processing

The organization must confine its processing of personal data to what the identified purposes make adequate, relevant and necessary. It must manage this through its information security and privacy policies, backed by documented procedures for putting them in place and following them, and by default must keep disclosure of the data, how long it is stored and who can reach it to the least the identified purposes call for.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.1.4.3. 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/IEC 27701:2025 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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Policy and procedures constraining processing to the identified purposes · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Access entitlements demonstrably scoped to purpose rather than to job title · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Disclosure rules limiting who outside the organization receives what · Document repository
Storage periods set per purpose · Document repository
Compliance monitoring against the limitation, not merely its adoption · 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

Broad internal access granted for convenience, so any employee can read any record
Limitation stated in policy with no procedure that turns it into a configuration
Secondary use for analytics or model training treated as within the original purpose without assessment
Storage period set at the system level rather than per purpose, so the longest purpose governs everything
Adoption evidenced while compliance is never monitored

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.1.4.2 Limit collection · A.1.4.4 Accuracy and quality