EvidenceSheet

PI1.1 Quality information about processing objectives, data definitions and specifications

Relevant, good-quality information about processing objectives, including what the processed data means and what products and services are specified to do, is obtained or generated, used and communicated to support use of the products and services. Points of focus: the information specifications needed to use products and services are identified; where data is supplied as part of a service or a reporting obligation, its definition is available to users and covers the population included, the nature of each element, sources, units of measure, accuracy and precision, uncertainty, the date or period observed and the inclusion and exclusion factors, is complete and accurate, and any metadata needed to understand it is described; and for goods, the information users need is available, clearly identifiable and validated.

Source: SOC 2 (2017 Trust Services Criteria), PI1.1. 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.

3
artefacts
0
held by a system
1
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

  • Review or validation records for published specifications · Document repository

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Data dictionaries or field specifications provided to customers · Document repository
  • Product and service specifications for processing outputs · 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

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

P8.1 Inquiries, complaints, disputes and compliance monitoring · PI1.2 Controls over system inputs