What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on A.3.30 Outsourced development?

Privacy by design requirements in outsourced development contracts and specifications; Acceptance or review evidence that the delivered system meets them.

What is the most common gap auditors find on A.3.30?

Outsourced systems accepted on functional tests alone

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

`A.3.30` Outsourced development

Where development or information systems are outsourced, the organization shall, as applicable, extend to them the privacy by design and by default principles it applies in-house, by setting those expectations in its requirements for the external developer and by checking that the delivered result meets them.

Source: ISO/IEC 27701:2025, A.3.30. 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

Acceptance or review evidence that the delivered system meets them · Vendor register / contract repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Privacy by design requirements in outsourced development contracts and specifications · 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

Outsourced systems accepted on functional tests alone
Privacy requirements in the internal policy never passed to the developer

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.3.29 Secure system architecture and engineering principles · A.3.31 Test information