{"description":"Reporting close for the Type II examination: drafting and validating the system description under the carve-out method, preparing the management assertion, reviewing complementary user entity controls and subservice reliance, and the dual-approval close of the examination file at the agreed period end. Management-owned SOC 2 Type II reporting support: system description, management assertion, CUECs, subservice reliance, and auditee file closure. The independent service auditor retains responsibility for examination conclusions and the CPA opinion. Attach this workflow to the existing SOC 2 evidence or reporting process item; retain evidence and conclusions on its workflow steps.","edges":[{"id":"e-step-1-step-4","source":"step-1","target":"step-4"}],"isPublic":true,"itemTypeSlug":"process","metadata":{"capabilities":[],"configuration":["engagement_scope","applicable_criteria","review_period","responsible_roles","resource_reference_index"],"controlMappingQualification":"Links reflect the procedures and scoped criteria in this module; other requirements sharing a unified control remain outside its conclusion.","controlVerbs":{},"controls":["UC-AUDIT-25","UC-GOV-21","UC-TPRM-04","UC-TPRM-08"],"department":"compliance-legal","domains":["grc"],"library":{"aliases":[],"canonicalUrl":"https://workflow-library.com/all/?w=grc-soc2-reporting-management-assertion","contentDigest":"sha256:3674467114ba7d272775885cfbb2dc7591c579950a0bdad5f8e7d49a90cba04e","prerequisites":{"status":"undeclared"},"provenance":[],"releaseId":"sha256:3674467114ba7d272775885cfbb2dc7591c579950a0bdad5f8e7d49a90cba04e","schemaVersion":1,"sourceTemplateId":"workflow-library:grc-soc2-reporting-management-assertion"},"lineOfDefense":"operate","mappingStatus":"mapped","risks":[],"scope":"Management-owned SOC 2 Type II reporting support: system description, management assertion, CUECs, subservice reliance, and auditee file closure. The independent service auditor retains responsibility for examination conclusions and the CPA opinion.","slug":"grc-soc2-reporting-management-assertion","source":"coworkcanvas-gallery","standards":["soc2"],"teams":["compliance-legal","executive"]},"name":"SOC 2 Reporting and Management Assertion","nodes":[{"data":{"controls":["UC-AUDIT-25","UC-TPRM-04","UC-TPRM-08"],"description":"Compliance owner, accountable control owners and security/compliance lead: Validate every system-description claim, boundary, CUEC assumption and period-complete subservice reliance against file evidence and actual practice.","instructions":"**Objective** — Validate the system description and its final CUEC/carve-out sections against tested evidence, actual product behavior and full-period subservice coverage before management signs.\n\n**Inputs**\nBefore starting, attach the approved scope and applicable criteria, review-period dates, responsible-role assignments, and a resource-reference index identifying the existing subject item, policy versions, systems of record, linked controls and processes, and any upstream evidence packages. Resolve each generic resource reference against that index; record unavailable resources as gaps.\n\nThe compliance owner prepares the package, accountable control owners validate their representations, and authorized management signs the assertion.\n\n- The Information Security Policy, Cloud Services Security Policy, and Data Classification & Handling Policy as the authorities the description cites\n- Tested evidence and walkthrough memos from the interim and wave activities\n- The infrastructure and vendor PBC packages, including subservice reliance mapping\n- Prior descriptions or marketing architecture material, to be checked against, never copied from\n- The Vendor Management Policy and Cloud Services Security Policy governing subservice oversight\n- The vendor PBC package: subservice reports, bridge letters, and the reliance mapping\n- The draft system description's CUEC and subservice sections\n- Customer-facing commitments and onboarding documentation, for consistency checking\n\n**Procedure**\n*Autonomous preparation incorporates Review CUECs & Subservice Carve-outs; Compliance owner, accountable control owners and security/compliance lead reviews the combined evidence.*\n1. Draft the description sections in the auditee's own operational vocabulary: customer provisioning and isolation where applicable, the deployment path from the source-control platform through CI to the application hosting service, data classification and handling, and the monitoring and incident machinery.\n2. Validate each factual claim against an artifact already in the examination file; anything unsupported is rewritten or evidenced.\n3. Confirm boundary statements match practice - what is inside the system, what the subservice organizations provide, and which services are excluded.\n4. Verify the description discloses the period, significant changes during it, and any identified deviations with their handling.\n5. Walk the draft with the security and compliance lead line by line and reconcile every comment before the final CUEC/carve-out reconciliation and management assertion signature.\n6. Enumerate each CUEC from the control set outward: for every criterion whose achievement partly depends on customer action, write the user entity control assumption in testable language.\n7. Check CUEC statements against actual product behavior and onboarding guidance - an assumed customer control the product does not surface is a description defect.\n8. For each carved-out control, verify the subservice report covers it, the report period plus bridge letter spans the review period, and any noted subservice exception is evaluated for impact.\n9. Verify the complementary subservice organization control listings in the description match the reliance mapping exactly.\n10. Reconcile the final CUEC and carve-out sections into the description and have the description owner resolve every delta before management signs the assertion.\n\n**Record in AssureSwarm**\nAttach the description draft and the claim-to-evidence validation matrix to this activity. Unsupported claims and their resolutions are recorded so the validation trail survives the redraft cycle.\nAttach the final CUEC register, the subservice coverage matrix with period spans, and the impact evaluation for any subservice exception to this activity.\n\n**Exit criteria**\nValidate every system-description claim, boundary, CUEC assumption and period-complete subservice reliance against file evidence and actual practice.\nThe description draft is complete, every claim maps to file evidence, boundaries and carve-outs read accurately, and the reconciled draft is ready for the management assertion.\nEvery CUEC is stated in testable language and consistent with product behavior, every carved-out control shows period-complete subservice coverage, and the description sections reconcile.","kind":"task","label":"Draft & Validate the System Description","performedBy":{"note":"Agent assembles authorized source records and prepares attachments. The accountable owner validates the package; named management signers retain approval responsibility.","primitives":["coach-query-data","coach-document-upload"]}},"id":"step-1"},{"data":{"controls":["UC-GOV-21","UC-AUDIT-25"],"description":"Executive sponsor and security and compliance lead as authorized management signers: Resolve signer questions, sign the evidence-backed management assertion and give both required approvals to the consistent final auditee report package.","instructions":"**Objective** — Prepare the evidence-backed management assertion and complete-file reconciliation, then obtain the authorized assertion signature and both required auditee package approvals.\n\n**Inputs**\n- The Board & Governance Policy establishing who may sign entity-level assertions\n- The Information Security Objectives, whose measured outcomes support the effectiveness statement\n- The validated system description and the full test-result picture including exception dispositions\n- The subservice reliance mapping and the complementary user entity control set\n- The Board & Governance Policy authority rules and the Internal Audit Program's file-closure standards\n- The complete examination file: PBC packages, walkthrough memos, design conclusions, test sheets, exception dispositions, and retest results\n- The validated system description, signed assertion, CUEC register, and subservice coverage matrix\n- The engagement timeline against the agreed period end\n\n**Procedure**\n*Autonomous preparation incorporates Prepare the Management Assertion; Executive sponsor and security and compliance lead as authorized management signers reviews the combined evidence.*\n1. Assemble the assertion support package: test summaries per criterion series, the exception log with dispositions, remediation-retest outcomes, and the description validation matrix.\n2. Walk the executive sponsor and the security and compliance lead through the package, criterion series by criterion series, flagging where the assertion relies on carved-out subservice controls or user entity responsibilities.\n3. Draft the assertion language consistent with what the evidence actually shows - where an exception stands unremediated at period end, the assertion and the description handle it explicitly rather than by silence.\n4. Confirm the signers' questions are resolved with file evidence, recording what was asked and shown.\n5. Route the assertion for signature under the governance policy's authority rules.\n6. Run the completeness check: every activity in the evidence-collection, interim, and reporting workflows shows its deliverables attached and accepted, with no orphaned request items.\n7. Reconcile the exception log end to end - each item classified, dispositioned, remediated and retested or disclosed, with the description and assertion telling the same story.\n8. Verify cross-document consistency: control names, criterion mappings, period dates, and subservice presentations match across description, assertion, and test matrix.\n9. Confirm the readiness of period-end deliverables the auditor still expects - final population refreshes through the agreed period end and the second-wave results - and record their owners and dates.\n10. Present the assembled package for dual sign-off; an unresolved objection returns the package to the owning activity rather than closing here.\n\n**Record in AssureSwarm**\nAttach the assertion draft, the support package index, and the signed assertion when executed. Questions raised by signers and the evidence shown in response are recorded on this activity.\nRecord the completeness check and the consistency reconciliation on this activity, attach the final package index, and capture both approvals with date and capacity.\n\n**Exit criteria**\nResolve signer questions, sign the evidence-backed management assertion and give both required approvals to the consistent final auditee report package.\nThe assertion is signed by authorized leadership, every clause traces to the support package, and open exceptions are reflected rather than omitted.\nThe file is complete and internally consistent, all open items carry owners and dates visible to the auditor, and both approvers have signed the report package.","kind":"task","label":"Close the Examination File & Approve the Report Package","performedBy":{"note":"Agent assembles authorized source records and prepares attachments. The accountable owner validates the package; named management signers retain approval responsibility.","primitives":["coach-query-data","coach-document-upload"]},"requiredApprovals":2},"id":"step-4"}],"sourceTemplateId":"workflow-library:grc-soc2-reporting-management-assertion"}