EvidenceSheet

CC2.3 Communication with external parties about internal control (COSO principle 15)

The organisation communicates with outside parties on matters that affect how internal control functions. Points of focus: relevant, timely information reaches shareholders, partners, regulators, customers and other external parties; open channels let customers, suppliers, auditors and regulators provide input; findings from external assessments reach the board; separate confidential channels exist; the method reflects timing, audience and legal or fiduciary expectations; confidentiality and privacy objectives and their changes are communicated to users, vendors and partners in engagements covering those categories; and at system level, external users are told how the system works, its objectives, their responsibilities and how to report failures, incidents and complaints. The 2022 revision adds, for privacy engagements, telling customers, third parties, data subjects and others how to report a suspected privacy incident.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), CC2.3. 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

  • Customer-facing system description, service terms or trust page stating commitments · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Documented channel for customers to report incidents or complaints, with sample tickets · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Contracts or notices communicating confidentiality and privacy commitments to customers and vendors · Vendor register / contract repository
  • Board papers showing external audit or assessment results were reported · Policy repository / GRC workspace
  • Published contact route for data subjects and partners to report suspected privacy incidents (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

CC2.2 Internal communication of objectives and control responsibilities (COSO principle 14) · CC3.1 Objectives specified clearly enough to assess risk (COSO principle 6)