What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.1.4.4 Accuracy and quality?

Documented accuracy standard, expressed relative to the purpose rather than absolutely; Validation and quality mechanisms at capture and through the lifecycle; Procedure for responding to discovered inaccuracy, including downstream correction; Quality measurement results.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.1.4.4?

Accuracy treated as a data quality initiative for reporting rather than an obligation owed to the individual

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

`A.1.4.4` Accuracy and quality

The organization must make sure, and record, that personal data is correct, complete and current to the degree its processing purposes demand, across the whole life of the data. It must put in place policies, procedures or mechanisms that keep errors to a minimum and deal with errors when they are found, and must include these in its documented information, for instance as technical system settings.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.1.4.4. 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

Quality measurement results · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Documented accuracy standard, expressed relative to the purpose rather than absolutely · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Validation and quality mechanisms at capture and through the lifecycle · Document repository
Procedure for responding to discovered inaccuracy, including downstream correction · 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

Accuracy treated as a data quality initiative for reporting rather than an obligation owed to the individual
Validation applied at capture with no mechanism to detect data going stale
Inaccuracy corrected where a person complains and nowhere else
Accuracy requirement identical across purposes, when a marketing list and a credit decision demand different standards
Corrections not propagated to systems fed from the corrected source

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.1.4.3 Limit processing · A.1.4.5 PII minimization objectives