The client, consulting the lead auditor and the auditee, makes the final decision on which system elements, locations and activities are audited and in what period. Scope and depth should meet the client's information needs and normally cover finding where the system needs improvement, judging how well hazard controls work and recommending ways to strengthen the system (the audit team's job), with carrying out those measures and monitoring the changes left to the auditee. There should be enough objective evidence to show the system operates and works, the resources committed should match scope and depth, and auditors may talk to individual workers to understand their views, involve them and invite suggestions.
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.
The graph holds this control, the 1 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.