What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.3.10 Addressing information security within supplier agreements?

Supplier agreements that say whether PII is handled and set the baseline safeguards required; Responsibility allocation clauses by type of PII; Audit or assurance clause and the independent evidence obtained under it; Instruction-only processing clause in a processor's sub-processor contracts.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.3.10?

Supplier contracts silent on PII while the supplier processes it

ISO/IEC 27701:2025 · Annex A Table A.3 information security controls with PII-specific guidance

`A.3.10` Addressing information security within supplier agreements

Supplier agreements shall state whether the supplier processes PII and set the baseline technical and organizational safeguards it has to meet so that the organization can fulfil its own security and PII protection duties. They shall divide responsibilities unambiguously across the organization, partners, suppliers and any other relevant third parties, with regard to the kind of PII involved; include a means by which the organization can support and oversee conformance with the laws and regulations that apply; and require independently audited evidence of compliance that the customer finds acceptable. Where the organization acts as a PII processor, its supplier contracts shall require that PII be processed solely as the organization instructs.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.3.10. 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

Vendor register / contract 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

none for this control

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Supplier agreements that say whether PII is handled and set the baseline safeguards required · Vendor register / contract repository
Responsibility allocation clauses by type of PII · Vendor register / contract repository
Audit or assurance clause and the independent evidence obtained under it · Vendor register / contract repository
Instruction-only processing clause in a processor's sub-processor contracts · Vendor register / contract 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

Supplier contracts silent on PII while the supplier processes it
Assurance clause never exercised
Sub-processors engaged on the supplier's standard terms with no instruction-only clause

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.3.9 Access rights · A.3.11 Information security incident management planning and preparation