For each material arrangement the entity must (a) identify and control risks to the provider's ability to keep delivering the service; (b) identify and manage risks the arrangement creates for the entity itself, such as contagion or step-in risk; (c) make sure it can carry out its BCP if required; and (d) make sure it can exit the arrangement in an orderly way if required. For limb (d) only: Para 57 can exempt the arrangement (Attachment category provider on standardised terms or no formal agreement), and APRA can exempt it in writing under para 58.
This control maps to 1 controls across 1 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management 55 is one control. If you already hold one of the frameworks below, a reviewed crosswalk already says how much of APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management your existing evidence covers. Hold NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 and 30 of 87 APRA CPS 230 Operational Risk Management controls already carry evidence.
Each report names every control your existing framework evidences, every one it does not, the reasoning behind each claim, and the claims that were argued against and rejected. 4 were rejected on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 pair alone.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.