EvidenceSheet

P5.2 Correction of personal information

Personal information is corrected, amended or supplemented on information from data subjects, and passed to third parties where committed or legally required; denied correction requests are explained. Points of focus: denials of access are explained in writing with any legal basis and the right to challenge where law allows; data subjects can update or correct their information and corrections reach third parties that received it; and denials of correction are explained in writing with how to appeal. The 2022 revision adds, for data processors, handling data controllers' update and correction requests under the service agreement, and passing on updates, corrections and deletion requests to recipients.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), P5.2. 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.

4
artefacts
2
held by a system
1
at each review
easy
to go live
SIEM / log platform
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

  • Correction request log and outcomes · SIEM / log platform
  • Log of update requests received from customers acting as controllers (processor role) · Identity provider / directory

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Evidence corrections and deletion requests were propagated to recipients · Data governance / DLP tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Template letters explaining denials and appeal routes · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Automate the pull from your SIEM / log platform. Retention and alert rules exported from the SIEM; review evidence is the closed-alert record with reviewer and time.

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

P5.1 Data subject access · P6.1 Disclosure to third parties with consent