What evidence do auditors commonly ask for on ID.IM-01 Improvements are identified from evaluations?

Penetration test report library with severity and status; Red team exercise after action reviews; Tabletop output catalogued with improvement actions; Improvement backlog with owners and due dates; Trend analysis across testing programs.

What is the most common gap auditors find on ID.IM-01?

Improvements actioned only after the next test

NIST CSF 2.0 · ID - Identify

`ID.IM-01` Improvements are identified from evaluations

Improvements are identified from evaluations

Source: NIST CSF 2.0, ID.IM-01. 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 NIST CSF 2.0 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

Red team exercise after action reviews · Document repository
Trend analysis across testing programs · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

Penetration test report library with severity and status · Policy repository / GRC workspace
Tabletop output catalogued with improvement actions · Document repository
Improvement backlog with owners and due dates · 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

Improvements actioned only after the next test
Tabletop outputs lost in chat logs
Trend analysis not performed
Tests scoped to easy wins

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

ID.AM-08 Systems, hardware, software, services, and data are managed throughout their life cycles · ID.IM-02 Improvements are identified from security tests and exercises, including those done in coordination with…