EvidenceSheet

CC1.3 Structures, reporting lines, authorities and responsibilities (COSO principle 3)

Management, overseen by the board, sets up the structures, reporting lines and authority needed to pursue objectives. Points of focus: every structure is considered, including business units, legal entities, locations and outsourced providers; reporting lines are designed so authority can be exercised and information can flow; authority and responsibility are delegated with segregation of duties where needed; requirements for security, availability, confidentiality, privacy and processing integrity shape how roles are defined; and the need to interact with and oversee external parties is built into the structure. The 2022 revision adds, for privacy engagements, that legal and contractual privacy obligations shape how structures, reporting lines and authority are set up.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), CC1.3. 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 SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria) in the compliance library.

These are criteria, not controls: you design controls that meet them, and which criteria are in scope follows the categories your report covers (Security always; Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity and Privacy only if chosen). A Type 2 report tests that the controls operated across the period, so the evidence asked for is samples across that period, not one copy.

5
artefacts
0
held by a system
0
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

  • Current organisation chart including security, IT operations, compliance and privacy functions · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Job descriptions or RACI naming security and privacy responsibilities · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Delegation of authority matrix · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Documented ownership of vendor and outsourced-provider oversight · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Mapping of privacy laws and contractual privacy terms to the role or office accountable for each (privacy engagements) · 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

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

CC1.2 Board independence and oversight of internal control (COSO principle 2) · CC1.4 Attracting, developing and retaining competent people (COSO principle 4)