Guidance: formal communication arrangements may be needed within the team and with the auditee, client and external parties such as regulators, especially where mandatory reporting of nonconformities applies. Team members should meet from time to time to share information, judge how the audit is progressing and redistribute work; the leader should periodically communicate progress, significant findings and concerns to the auditee and client; evidence pointing to a significant risk that is immediate should be passed on at once; concerns that fall outside the scope should be recorded and brought to the leader, who may pass them on; where evidence shows the objectives are unattainable the leader should explain why to the client and the auditee so that the action to take can be decided, such as replanning, changing objectives or scope, or termination; and changes to the plan should be reviewed and accepted by the programme manager and client and presented to the auditee.
This control maps to 12 controls across 11 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 12 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.