/

  / AI Tool Usage Tracking: Why CASB & DLP Miss Shadow AI

AI Tool Usage Tracking: Why CASB & DLP Miss Shadow AI

One in five breached organizations last year traced the incident to shadow AI, and those breaches cost an average of $670,000 more than standard incidents, according to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report. The worst part is that most of those organizations already ran a CASB, a DLP program, or both. The tools were on, but the traffic still got through.

That’s the visibility gap this article is about. AI tool usage tracking isn’t the same problem as SaaS discovery, and the security stack built for the SaaS era misses most of what matters about AI. Below, we break down what tracking actually requires, where CASB and DLP fail, which categories of AI usage slip through, and what a stack that works looks like in 2026.

AI Tool Usage Tracking

What AI Tool Usage Tracking Actually Means

Most teams that say they “track AI usage” mean they can see that someone visited chat.openai.com. That is app discovery, and it answers almost none of the questions a security or governance team actually needs answered.

Beyond App Discovery: Tracking Prompts, Data Flows, and Model Interactions

Real tracking covers three layers.

  • First, which tools are in use: chatbots, copilots, coding assistants, embedded SaaS features, agents.
  • Second, what data moves: the content of prompts, uploaded files, and pasted context, mapped against data classifications.
  • Third, how models behave in your environment: which endpoints get called, which OAuth grants exist, which agents hold standing permissions.

Seeing that an employee opened ChatGPT gets you nowhere. What you actually need to know is whether they pasted a customer contract into a personal account while they were there.

The Difference Between Detection, Monitoring, and Continuous Tracking

Detection is a point-in-time answer to “what AI is here?” Monitoring watches known tools on an ongoing basis. Continuous tracking is broader: it assumes the inventory changes weekly, correlates identity, data, and endpoint signals over time, and feeds a governance program rather than a one-off report. Frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO 42001 assume the third mode. A discovery scan from last quarter won’t satisfy an auditor, and it certainly won’t slow down an attacker.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Schedule Your Free Assessment Today

Why Traditional SaaS Monitoring Falls Short for AI

SaaS monitoring was built around a stable premise: an app is a destination with a domain, a login, and an admin console. AI breaks that premise in several ways at once. The risky activity is the content of an interaction, not the visit. The tool often isn’t a destination at all but a feature inside an app you already sanctioned. And increasingly the “user” isn’t a person but an agent acting on delegated credentials.

Why CASB Misses Shadow AI Usage

The Cloud Access Security Broker sits between users and cloud services to enforce policy, and for classic SaaS governance it still earns its keep. AI has structural blind spots that no amount of tuning can fix.

CASBs Were Built for SaaS Apps, Not Model Endpoints

A CASB catalog maps domains to applications with risk scores. AI usage doesn’t resolve neatly to a domain. The same api.openai.com endpoint serves a sanctioned enterprise deployment, a developer’s weekend experiment, and a data-leaking browser extension, and the catalog sees one “app”. Meanwhile, new model endpoints, wrappers, and niche AI tools appear faster than any vendor catalog can keep up with. Gartner research from late 2025 found 69% of organizations already suspect or have evidence that employees use prohibited public generative AI tools, catalog or no catalog.

Blind Spots in Encrypted API Traffic to LLM Providers

Prompt content travels over TLS. Without full TLS inspection, a CASB sees connection metadata: destination, volume, timing. It can’t see that the payload contained source code or patient records. And full TLS inspection is harder than the datasheet implies. Certificate pinning breaks it for many native apps and CLI tools, legal and works-council constraints limit it in the EU, and most organizations carve out broad exemption lists that AI traffic happily rides through.

The OAuth and Embedded AI Problem CASBs Can’t See

When an employee grants an AI meeting-notes tool access to their calendar and mailbox via OAuth, no proxy is involved at all. The vendor’s servers communicate directly with Microsoft’s or Google’s APIs using a persistent token. The same applies to AI features embedded inside sanctioned SaaS, think Notion AI, Slack AI, or Salesforce Einstein. The CASB sees approved traffic to an approved app, while the AI processing happening inside it, and whichever sub-processor it forwards data to, stays invisible.

Personal Accounts and BYO-AI Bypass CASB Proxies

Netskope’s 2026 Cloud and Threat Report found that nearly half of employees who use generative AI at work do so through personal accounts. Personal accounts on managed devices are hard enough; personal accounts on personal devices, home networks, and mobile connections never touch the corporate proxy path at all. Tenant restrictions help for a handful of major providers and do nothing for the long tail.

Browser-Based and Extension-Delivered AI Escape Network Inspection

AI browser extensions read page content and form inputs locally, then exfiltrate via their own backend, often to generic cloud infrastructure that categorizes as “technology” rather than “AI”. From the network’s view, it is routine HTTPS to a CDN. The riskiest interaction, an extension scraping everything an employee views, produces the most boring traffic signature.

Insider Note: In AI governance readiness assessments, the OAuth grant review is where clients get the biggest surprise. We routinely find dozens of AI tools holding live mail, calendar, or drive scopes that nobody in IT ever approved, granted by employees who abandoned the tool (and sometimes the company) months earlier. The tokens keep working anyway.

Why DLP Fails to Catch Shadow AI Data Exposure

DLP has the opposite problem. It can sometimes see content, but it doesn’t understand it, and AI interactions defeat the pattern matching it depends on.

Prompt-Based Data Loss Doesn’t Match DLP Signature Patterns

DLP fires on signatures: credit card regexes, SSN formats, keyword dictionaries, file fingerprints. Sensitive prompts rarely look like that. “Summarize why we’re losing the Meridian account and draft talking points for the board” contains no pattern a regex engine recognizes, yet it hands an external model your strategy and a customer’s identity in one sentence. The 2026 Verizon DBIR analyzed over 858,000 DLP events involving uploads to generative AI tools and found source code the most frequently exposed data type by a wide margin, and source code is precisely what signature-based DLP handles worst.

DLP Can’t Distinguish Between Sanctioned and Unsanctioned AI Endpoints

An enterprise ChatGPT tenant with a zero-retention agreement and a free personal account are, to a DLP engine, the same destination. The risk difference between them is nearly the whole risk model, and DLP has no concept of it. So policies end up blocking both, which pushes users to their phones, or allowing both, which governs neither.

Copy-Paste, Screenshot, and Contextual Leakage Blind Spots

Endpoint DLP can watch clipboard events into a browser, but it can’t evaluate what a paste means inside an ongoing AI conversation. Screenshots pasted into multimodal models bypass text inspection entirely. And context accumulates: ten individually harmless prompts across a session can jointly disclose a confidential deal. No DLP engine evaluates a conversation. They evaluate events.

Lack of Semantic Understanding of AI Conversations

The core failure is semantic. Whether an AI interaction is risky depends on meaning, intent, and the sensitivity of information in context. That judgment requires language understanding, which is to say it requires AI. Regex-era DLP inspecting LLM traffic is a typewriter auditing a printing press.

The Agentic AI and MCP Server Problem

Agents make it worse. An agent connected through MCP (Model Context Protocol) servers reads files and calls APIs on service credentials, with no human in the loop per action. These non-human identities generate traffic that looks like any other service-to-service integration. The Cloud Security Alliance’s May 2026 research on shadow AI applications found 53% of organizations have already experienced AI agents exceeding their intended permissions. Gartner projects the average Fortune 500 enterprise will run more than 150,000 AI agents by 2028. DLP was designed for humans moving files. This is neither.

Categories of AI Usage

The Categories of AI Usage That Slip Through CASB + DLP

Put the two failure modes together and a consistent set of blind spots emerges.

  • Public LLM chatbot sessions. ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, and the long tail, especially on personal accounts and unmanaged devices, where neither proxy nor endpoint agent is present.
  • AI features embedded in sanctioned SaaS. Copilots inside productivity suites, AI summarization in CRMs and ticketing tools. The app is sanctioned; the AI processing inside it never was.
  • AI coding assistants and IDE plugins. Assistants ship code context to model endpoints from inside the IDE, over pinned TLS, in developer environments that security tooling touches least. Given what the DBIR data says about source code exposure, this is arguably the single highest-value blind spot.
  • Browser extensions with AI capabilities. They install locally, ask for broad permissions, and leave almost nothing behind on the network.
  • Autonomous agents and MCP server calls. These run at machine speed on non-human identities, and their traffic blends into legitimate integration activity.
  • API-direct access to foundation models. Developers and power users calling model endpoints from scripts, notebooks, and internal tools with personal API keys, bypassing every user-facing control.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Schedule Your Free Assessment Today

What Actually Works: A Modern AI Tool Usage Tracking Stack

No single tool replaces CASB and DLP for AI. What works is a layered stack that moves inspection to where AI interactions are actually legible.

Browser-Level Telemetry for Prompt and Response Visibility

The browser is where most AI interactions become plaintext. Enterprise browsers and browser extensions for security capture prompts, pastes, and uploads before encryption, tied to the logged-in identity, with no TLS inspection required. This is the fastest-growing layer of the AI visibility market for a reason. The honest downside is that it only covers browser-based usage on managed profiles, and rollouts meet real employee-privacy resistance, particularly in European works-council environments. Scope it to business identities and be transparent about what you’re capturing.

Identity-Centric Tracking via OAuth and SSO Signals

Your identity provider already logs a large share of AI adoption. New SSO registrations to AI tools, OAuth consent grants with mail, file, or calendar scopes, and token activity for departed users are all queryable today, with no new agents deployed. Reviewing OAuth grants is the single highest-yield first step in most environments and the cheapest.

Endpoint Signals for Local Model and Agent Detection

Endpoint telemetry (EDR or dedicated sensors) catches what the browser layer can’t: IDE plugins, CLI tools, local models running via Ollama or similar, and agent processes making API calls. Process lineage plus destination gives you the non-browser half of the inventory.

Prompt-Aware Content Inspection (Not Just Regex-Based DLP)

Once prompt text is visible, classify it with models, not regexes. Semantic classifiers can flag strategy discussions, unreleased financials, and source code exposure that no signature would catch, and can evaluate conversation context rather than isolated events. This is DLP rebuilt for language.

Behavioral Analytics for AI Interaction Patterns

UEBA-style baselining applies cleanly to AI: a finance user suddenly pushing large volumes to a new model endpoint, an agent identity querying systems outside its historical scope, prompt volume spiking before a resignation. Behavior catches the tools your catalog has never heard of.

Continuous SaaS-to-AI Integration Discovery

SSPM-style scanning of sanctioned SaaS reveals which AI integrations, plugins, and sub-processors are attached to your tenants, closing the embedded-AI gap that network tools can’t see. Run it continuously, because the integration list changes monthly.

Pro Tip: Sequence by cost.

Sequence by cost. Week one: pull OAuth grants and SSO logs from your IdP, free. Month one: turn on SaaS integration discovery. Quarter one: pilot browser telemetry with a high-risk group such as engineering or finance. Endpoint and semantic layers come after, once the inventory tells you where the actual risk concentrates.

Building an AI Usage Tracking Program That Scales

Tooling without a program produces dashboards nobody acts on. Four elements make tracking operational.

Establishing a Baseline of AI Interactions Across the Workforce

Run discovery across all layers for 30 to 60 days before enforcing anything. Expect the inventory to come back several times larger than anyone predicted. Knowing that in advance keeps leadership from reaching for a panicked blanket ban, which mostly drives usage further underground. The baseline also gives you the denominator for every metric that follows.

Defining Risk-Tiered Tracking Policies by Tool and Data Type

Not all AI usage deserves the same scrutiny.

A workable model uses three tiers:

  • Sanctioned tools with enterprise agreements (light-touch logging),
  • Tolerated tools (monitored, with data-type restrictions), and
  • Prohibited tools (blocked where feasible, alerted everywhere else).

Tier by data sensitivity as well: marketing copy in a chatbot and customer PII in a chatbot are different events, and under GDPR the second may be a reportable one.

Correlating User, Data, and Model Signals

The value is in the joins. Browser telemetry says what was pasted; the IdP says which identity; SSPM says which integrations that identity authorized; endpoint data says which agents run under it. Correlated, these answer the question that matters: which people and which agents are moving which data into which models.

Feeding AI Tracking Data Into SIEM and Governance Workflows

Route high-severity events into the SIEM alongside everything else, and route the aggregate picture into governance. ISO 42001 and the EU AI Act both presuppose that you know what AI systems are in use, and tracking data is the evidence base for the AI asset inventory, impact assessments, and audits those frameworks require. IBM’s 2025 data found 97% of organizations that suffered AI-related breaches lacked proper AI access controls. Tracking is how you find out whether you’re one of them before an incident does. If you are building that governance layer, our guide to implementing ISO 42001 step by step covers how the AI asset inventory and risk register fit together, and for organizations deploying agents, AIUC-1 AI agent certification extends that governance into auditable agent-level controls.

Evaluation Criteria: Choosing an AI Usage Tracking Solution

The market is crowded and the marketing is uniform, so evaluate on architecture rather than adjectives.

  • AI-native detection vs. retrofitted CASB/DLP.
    Ask vendors to show detection of an unlisted tool, a personal-account session, and an embedded SaaS AI feature. Retrofitted platforms typically pass the first test and fail the other two, because catalogs and signatures are still doing the work underneath.
  • Depth of prompt and response visibility.
    Some tools log that an AI site was visited, some capture prompts, and only a few capture responses and file uploads with data classification attached. Know which layer you’re buying, and check retention and redaction options, since prompt logs are themselves a sensitive data store.
  • Coverage across browser, endpoint, API, and SaaS.
    No vendor covers all four well. Decide which gaps you will accept or fill with a second product, and weight coverage by where your risk sits: engineering-heavy companies should weight endpoint and API coverage far above browser.
  • Real-time enforcement vs. after-the-fact logging.
    Inline blocking and redaction stop leaks but add latency and false-positive friction, while logging is safer to deploy and useless in the moment. Mature programs start in log-only mode and graduate specific high-confidence policies to enforcement.
  • Integration with existing identity and security stack.
    The correlation described above only happens if the tool speaks to your IdP, SIEM, and EDR natively. A brilliant detector that exports CSVs won’t survive contact with your SOC’s workload.

Budget honestly: browser-layer and SSPM-style tools commonly land in the $3 to $10 per user per month range, full platforms higher, and the internal cost of policy design and alert triage usually exceeds the license. Set against IBM’s $670,000 shadow AI breach premium, the math is rarely the hard part; the operating discipline is.

Shadow AI isn’t a gap you can close by tightening the tools you already have. CASB can’t see inside encrypted, OAuth-mediated, extension-delivered AI traffic, and DLP can’t judge the meaning of a prompt. Visibility has to move to the browser, the identity layer, the endpoint, and the SaaS integration graph, and the output has to feed a governance program that decides what happens next. Organizations that build that stack now will walk into EU AI Act obligations, ISO 42001 audits, and their own board meetings with evidence instead of estimates.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can CASB detect ChatGPT usage?

Partially. A CASB can see connections to known ChatGPT domains from devices routed through its proxy, and it can block them. It can’t see prompt content, can’t tell an enterprise tenant from a personal account, and sees nothing from unmanaged devices, personal networks, or API traffic. Seeing the visit isn’t the same as seeing the risk.

Not reliably. DLP can block pattern-matched data (card numbers, SSNs) from reaching known AI destinations if it can inspect the traffic. It doesn’t understand prompts semantically, so most sensitive-but-unstructured leakage passes straight through, and prompt injection is an attack on the model’s behavior, which DLP doesn’t evaluate at all.

Detection is the discovery step: finding unsanctioned AI tools in the environment at a point in time. AI usage tracking is the continuous program built on top: monitoring interactions, correlating identity and data signals, enforcing tiered policies, and feeding governance frameworks like ISO 42001 and the NIST AI RMF with evidence.

No. Keep them for what they do well: SaaS access governance and structured-data controls. Add AI-specific layers on top: identity-based OAuth monitoring, browser telemetry, SaaS integration discovery, and prompt-aware classification. Replacement is rarely justified; supplementation almost always is.

You mostly don’t decrypt it; you move the inspection point. Capture interactions at the browser or endpoint before encryption; use identity signals.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

If your ISO 27001 certificate covers all of your health and care data processing, the NHS Data Security and Protection Toolkit does two useful things with it. It marks the applicable evidence items as complete on its own, and it shrinks the scope of any independent audit to whatever your certification doesn’t already cover. A certified vendor who does the mapping properly walks into a DSPT submission with most of the technical and organizational evidence already written, already audited, and already versioned. What ISO 27001 won’t do is get you out of the DSPT. It says nothing about the NHS-specific information governance items, clinical safety, the national data opt-out, or Caldicott principles. Vendors who assume “certified means done” usually discover this in the last two weeks of June. This piece is for the founder, CTO, or ops lead at a UK health-tech company who owns compliance without being a compliance person. It covers what each framework asks for, which Annex A controls line up with which DSPT requirements, which evidence you can reuse as-is, which needs reframing around patient data, and a five-step workflow for turning an existing ISMS into a DSPT submission. One more thing on timing: NHS England published DSPT version 9 for the 2026/27 cycle on 4 September 2026, and the submission deadline is 30 June 2027. So this exercise belongs in your calendar now, not next spring. Understanding the Two Frameworks at a Glance​ What ISO 27001:2022 Covers ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is the international standard for an Information Security Management System (ISMS). It comes in two halves. Clauses 4 to 10 define the management system itself: context, leadership, risk assessment and treatment, resourcing, operation, performance evaluation, and continual improvement. Annex A lists 93 reference controls across four themes (organizational, people, physical, technological). Your Statement of Applicability (SoA) records which of those controls you apply, which you exclude, and why. An accredited certification body issues the certificate after a two-stage audit, then you keep it through annual surveillance audits and a three-year recertification cycle. The certificate covers a defined scope, and that scope statement is the first thing a DSPT assessor reads. What the NHS DSPT Requires in 2026/27 The Data Security and Protection Toolkit (DSPT) is NHS England’s annual online self-assessment for every organization that touches NHS patient data or systems. It’s a contractual requirement under the NHS Standard Contract. Your published status (“Standards Met”, “Standards Exceeded”, “Approaching Standards”, “Standards Not Met”) is publicly searchable, so procurement teams and prospective NHS customers do look it up. The Toolkit isn’t one assessment. NHS England tailors it by organization category, and your category decides which assertions you answer and whether you need an independent audit. Version 9 came out on 4 September 2026. The Category 1 view is aligned to CAF version 4.0, and the whole thing closes on 30 June 2027. Insider Note: Most health-tech SaaS vendors are Category 3, not Category 2. To be an IT Supplier you need all three things at once: digital goods or services to the NHS, 50 or more staff, and £10 million or more in turnover. Picking “IT Supplier” because you sell NHS-facing software, without hitting the size thresholds, lands you in a heavier evidence set and a mandatory audit you may not need. Check the category before you check anything else. Key Structural Differences Between ISO 27001 and DSPT Four differences matter when you’re trying to reuse evidence. What they’re about. ISO 27001 is an information security standard. The DSPT is an information governance standard that includes security. A good chunk of it deals with lawful basis, transparency, data subject rights, records management, and the SIRO and Caldicott Guardian roles. None of that is in Annex A. How you’re assured. ISO 27001 gets certified once and surveilled once a year by an accredited body. The DSPT starts from a blank submission every year, and Category 1 and 2 organizations get independently assessed every year too. How granular they are. Annex A controls read as objectives (“access rights shall be provisioned, reviewed, modified and removed”). DSPT evidence items read as things to upload (“a list of all systems that hold personal data, with the date of last review”). So the mapping runs many-to-one in both directions. Where they’re heading. Since 2024/25 NHS England has been moving the Toolkit onto the NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF). CAF is outcome-based: assessors score you Achieved, Partially Achieved, or Not Achieved against an NHS England profile, rather than accepting a policy upload as proof. Category 1 organizations are already there. Category 2 and 3 are still on assertions and evidence, but NHS England has said CAF alignment will reach more organization types over time. The Business Case for Reusing ISO 27001 Evidence in DSPT How Much of DSPT Can Realistically Be Satisfied by ISO 27001 Controls For a Category 2 or 3 vendor with a full-scope ISO 27001 certificate, expect 60 to 75 percent of the mandatory evidence items to come from ISMS artifacts, either automatically (where the Toolkit auto-completes them) or with some light reframing. The rest is NHS-specific governance and information governance content that ISO 27001 doesn’t touch. The NHS’s own guidance treats reuse as a scope question. The DSPT help pages say an ISO 27001 certification must cover all health and care data processing to receive the full exemption, and that a certificate scoped only to an IT department is good evidence for many of the IT questions but not all of them. If your certificate says “the SaaS platform hosted in AWS eu-west-2” and NHS data also passes through your support desk tooling, your analytics sandbox, and a contractor’s laptop, the auto-completion won’t apply. Your assessor will want to know how those flows are controlled. Time and Cost Savings for Health-Tech Vendors There’s no fee to submit the DSPT. The cost is internal time, plus, if you’re Category 2, the independent audit and the annual penetration test the mandatory assertions expect. Building a first DSPT submission from nothing usually takes

ISO 27001 Gap Analysis
This step-by-step guide will help you understand an ISO 27001 gap analysis, its benefits, and how to execute it effectively. By following these best practices, your organization will be well-prepared for the ISO 27001 certification audit and subsequent ISO 27001 audits.

Most companies start their first SOC 2 or ISO 27001 project in a spreadsheet, only to have it fall apart in week 6. This is typically when they’ll call us asking us to implement a GRC system that scales. Excel holds 154 controls fine. The trouble starts when an auditor sends over an evidence request list, two frameworks need updating at once, and a control owner who hasn’t opened the file since March edits the wrong row. This article gives you a free GRC workbook template built to take into consideration the hundreds of engagements we’ve guided. It walks you through each tab and tells you plainly when you’ve outgrown it. We’ve worked with hundreds of companies implementing SOC 2 + ISO 27001 and to be honest, for 80% of cases, using excel is feasible and even advised. Its a tool most of the staff knows and using it cuts onboarding times from weeks to a few hours. It also makes it accessible to the whole organization. The workbook covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy criteria, all 93 ISO 27001:2022 Annex A controls, a crosswalk between the two, and the evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers that sit around them. It’s free, there are no macros, and it opens in Excel or Google Sheets. Why Start SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Tracking in a Spreadsheet The obvious argument for using Excel is cost and ease of use. A GRC platform costs around $10,000 a year before you’ve put a single control in place, and it pushes you into its control library and its workflow before you understand your own environment. A spreadsheet costs nothing and holds exactly the columns you need. More usefully, it makes you think about scope, ownership, and evidence before you automate any of it, and that thinking is the part no platform does for you. There’s a less obvious reason too. Teams that build their first control inventory by hand understand it. They know why CC6.3 maps to A.5.18, why the offboarding checklist is evidence for both, and who actually owns it. Teams that inherit a pre-populated platform library often don’t, and it shows in audit interviews when the auditor asks a control owner to explain a control they’ve never read. When a GRC Workbook Makes Sense A spreadsheet is the right tool when you’re chasing one or two frameworks, your team is under about 50 people, and one person owns compliance day to day. It also suits the readiness phase for any company. Scoping, gap analysis, and control design all go faster in a workbook than in a platform because there’s nothing to configure first. If you’re aiming for a SOC 2 Type I, or an ISO 27001 certificate with a tightly bounded ISMS scope, the workbook can carry you all the way to the audit. When You’ve Outgrown Excel (and Need a Platform) Excel breaks at scale in predictable ways. Spreadsheet research going back decades keeps finding that most operational spreadsheets contain at least one error; a review of field audits across 88 operational spreadsheets found errors in 94% of them. A compliance workbook with 1,400 formulas and a dozen editors isn’t exempt. Add a Type II observation period, where you collect the same evidence every month for a year, and manual tracking stops being a discipline and becomes someone’s full-time job. The specific tripwires are covered later in the article, but the short version is that when evidence collection becomes the bottleneck, it’s time to stop. What’s Inside the Free GRC Workbook Template The workbook has nine tabs. Eight get their own section in the walkthrough below; the ninth, Gap Analysis, is a remediation log that feeds the dashboard. Every tab uses the same color convention.  Navy headers mean pre-filled reference content. Teal headers with light yellow cells are the fields you fill in. Grey headers are formula columns, and you should leave those alone. SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria Coverage All 61 criteria from the AICPA 2017 Trust Services Criteria (with the 2022 revised points of focus) are already in there: the 33 Common Criteria across CC1 through CC9, plus Availability (3), Confidentiality (2), Processing Integrity (5), and Privacy (18). Each row has a plain-English summary of what the criterion expects, so a control owner who has never opened the AICPA document can still understand what they’re being asked to prove. ISO 27001 Annex A Controls Coverage All 93 Annex A controls from ISO/IEC 27001:2022 are listed under their four themes: Organizational (37), People (8), Physical (14), and Technological (34). Each control has a short description of what it covers and a pre-computed column showing which SOC 2 criteria relate to it. Unified Control Mapping Between SOC 2 and ISO 27001 The Crosswalk tab maps every SOC 2 criterion to the Annex A controls and ISO clauses it overlaps with, labels the overlap as Shared, Partial, or SOC 2-specific, and pulls the live status and evidence IDs from the SOC 2 tab. A second table lists the 13 Annex A controls that have no meaningful SOC 2 counterpart, so you know what to track on its own. Evidence Tracker Every piece of evidence gets one row, tagged to the SOC 2 criteria and ISO controls it supports, with an owner, a source system, a location, the period it covers, and how often you collect it. A formula works out the next due date and flags each item as Current, Due Soon, Overdue, or Not Scheduled. Owner and Status Fields Both control tabs have a Control Owner column and a Status dropdown with five defined states: Not Started, In Progress, Implemented, Needs Remediation, and Not Applicable. The definitions sit on the Overview tab so that two people setting a status on the same day mean the same thing by it. Risk Register Tab Likelihood and impact on a 1 to 5 scale, an automatic score, a rating (Critical, High, Medium, Low), a treatment