/

  / PDPA Compliance Singapore Checklist: 15 Steps to Avoid PDPC Enforcement

PDPA Compliance Singapore Checklist: 15 Steps to Avoid PDPC Enforcement

In 2018, a cyberattack on SingHealth exposed the records of 1.5 million patients, including the Prime Minister. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) handed down S$1 million in combined penalties, and that decision still sits on its public enforcement page today.

The Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA) has sharper teeth than it did a few years ago. Since October 2022, the PDPC can impose financial penalties of up to 10% of an organisation’s annual turnover in Singapore, or S$1 million, whichever is higher. Breach notification is now mandatory. And a hard deadline is approaching: from 1 January 2027, using NRIC numbers for authentication becomes an enforcement target. A checklist is how you turn all of that into something you can actually execute against, rather than a legal document you skim once and forget.

The PDPA Compliance Singapore Checklist

What Is the PDPA Compliance Checklist?

A PDPA compliance checklist translates the law’s 11 data protection obligations into concrete, verifiable actions. The obligations themselves are principles: Consent, Purpose Limitation, Notification, Access and Correction, Accuracy, Protection, Retention Limitation, Transfer Limitation, Data Breach Notification, Accountability, and Data Portability (legislated in 2020 but not yet in force).

A principle tells you what good looks like. A checklist tells you whether you have done it. The distinction matters because the PDPC does not accept good intentions as a defense. When it investigates, it looks for documented policies, a named Data Protection Officer (DPO), evidence of consent, and a breach plan that existed before the breach. The checklist is what produces that evidence trail.

SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA done for you. Fixed fee, 100% audit pass rate.

Audit-ready in 6 weeks. Not 6 months.

Who Needs to Follow the PDPA Compliance Checklist in Singapore

Every private sector organisation that collects, uses, or discloses personal data in Singapore falls under the PDPA. That covers sole proprietorships, partnerships, companies, and foreign entities with Singapore operations. Headcount is irrelevant. A five-person startup carries the same obligations as a multinational, and the PDPC has shown it will penalize small and mid-sized businesses, not only household names.

Physical presence is not the trigger either. If your processing touches individuals in Singapore, the Act can reach you even without a local office. Public sector agencies sit under separate legislation, but the private sector rules administered by the PDPC, which operates under the Info-communications Media Development Authority (IMDA), apply broadly. One useful carve-out: business contact information used purely for business purposes is largely exempt from the consent rules.

Worth Knowing: PDPA Roles Explained

The PDPA distinguishes an organisation from a data intermediary, a party that processes data on another's behalf. Intermediaries carry a narrower but real set of duties, mainly protection and retention. If you outsource payroll, hosting, or email marketing, you are the organisation and your vendor is the intermediary, and the contract between you needs to say so explicitly.

PDPA Compliance Checklist: Step-by-Step Guide

The 15 steps below move roughly in the order you should tackle them, from governance foundations through operational controls to ongoing assurance. Treat them as a sequence, not a menu.

Step 1: Appoint a Data Protection Officer (DPO)

The PDPA requires every organisation to designate at least one individual responsible for compliance, and to make that person’s business contact details available to the public. You do not have to hire a specialist. In smaller firms, an existing employee can hold the DPO role alongside other duties. What matters is that the role is named, resourced, and reachable, because the DPO is who the PDPC and affected individuals contact first. Publish the contact details on your website and inside your privacy notice.

Step 2: Map and Inventory Personal Data

You cannot protect data you cannot see. Build a data inventory that records what personal data you hold, where it lives, which systems and people can access it, why you collected it, and how long you keep it. This map is the single most useful artifact in your entire program. It feeds your privacy notice, your retention schedule, your breach assessments, and your vendor reviews. Most compliance failures trace back to a blind spot, a spreadsheet of customer records nobody remembered, or a legacy database still holding data long past its purpose.

Step 3: Establish Lawful Basis and Obtain Valid Consent

Under the Consent Obligation, you generally need an individual’s consent before you collect, use, or disclose their personal data, and that consent must be tied to a specific, notified purpose. The 2020 amendments added flexibility: deemed consent covers scenarios like contractual necessity, and the legitimate interests exception lets you process data where the benefit outweighs any adverse effect, provided you document the assessment. You cannot make consent to unrelated data uses a condition of providing a service.

Important: Bundled consent is a common enforcement trigger. A single checkbox that forces a customer to agree to marketing in order to complete a purchase is not valid consent for the marketing. Separate the purposes, and let people say yes to one without being forced into the other.

Step 4: Draft and Publish a Compliant Privacy Notice

Your privacy notice is the public expression of how you handle personal data. It should state what you collect, the purposes you collect it for, who you share it with, how long you retain it, and how individuals can contact your DPO or exercise their access and correction rights. Write it in plain language. A notice dense enough to deter reading does not satisfy the spirit of the Notification Obligation, and regulators notice the difference.

Step 5: Implement the Notification of Purpose Requirement

The Notification Obligation and the Purpose Limitation Obligation work as a pair. You must inform individuals of the purpose before or at the point of collection, and you must then confine your use of the data to that purpose. Practically, that means a clear notice at every collection point: sign-up forms, website pop-ups, contact forms, event registrations. Selling a customer list you gathered for order fulfillment is precisely the kind of unrelated use the Act prohibits.

Step 6: Set Up Processes for Access and Correction Requests

The Access and Correction Obligation gives individuals the right to see the personal data you hold about them, learn how it has been used or disclosed, and request corrections. You need a defined intake process, a way to verify the requester’s identity, and a response workflow that meets the PDPC’s expected timelines. Build a simple log. When a request arrives, record when it came in, what you did, and when you closed it. That record is your proof of compliance if the individual later complains.

Step 7: Ensure Data Accuracy and Set Retention Limits

Two obligations converge here. The Accuracy Obligation requires you to make reasonable effort to keep personal data accurate and complete, especially where you will use it to make a decision affecting the individual. The Retention Limitation Obligation requires you to stop keeping data once the purpose has ended and no legal reason to retain it remains. Indefinite retention is a liability, not an asset. Set retention periods per data category, then actually dispose of data when the clock runs out.

Step 8: Implement Reasonable Security Safeguards

The Protection Obligation is the single most common basis for PDPC enforcement, so this step earns disproportionate attention. You must make reasonable security arrangements to protect personal data against unauthorized access, use, disclosure, loss, or modification. That spans the obvious controls, encryption, access management, patching, and logging, and the human ones, staff handling procedures and least-privilege access. There is a fast-approaching specific: from 1 January 2027, the PDPC will step up enforcement against organisations that use NRIC numbers for authentication, treating it as a failure of reasonable security. If your login flows, default passwords, or verification checks rely on full or partial NRIC numbers, redesign them before the deadline.

Pro Tip: Multi-factor Authentication methods

Move authentication to multi-factor methods, one-time passwords, or tokens now rather than in December 2026. The change touches customer portals, internal systems, and any third-party platform you use, so the vendor coordination alone takes longer than teams expect. Treat NRIC removal as a project, not a config change.

Step 9: Establish Cross-Border Data Transfer Controls

The Transfer Limitation Obligation governs cross-border data transfer. Before you send personal data outside Singapore, you must ensure the receiving party is bound to a standard of protection comparable to the PDPA. In practice, that means contractual clauses, binding corporate rules for intra-group transfers, or reliance on a recognized certification such as the APEC Cross-Border Privacy Rules. Map your data flows first, because cloud services, offshore support teams, and overseas parent companies all count as transfers even when the data never touches a physical border.

Step 10: Prepare a Data Breach Response Plan

The Data Breach Notification Obligation sets a tight clock. A breach is a notifiable data breach if it is likely to cause significant harm to affected individuals, or if it involves the personal data of 500 or more individuals, regardless of harm. Once you assess a breach as notifiable, you must notify the PDPC within 3 calendar days and notify affected individuals where significant harm is likely. The three-day clock starts from your assessment, not from discovery, but the PDPC expects that assessment to be prompt. You cannot stall the assessment to delay the deadline.

A response plan is what makes three days survivable. Define the response team, the containment steps, the assessment criteria, and pre-drafted notification templates in advance. Failing to notify is itself a separate contravention, and the PDPC treats it as an aggravating factor that pushes the overall penalty higher.

Step 11: Screen Numbers Against the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry

If you run any telemarketing, the Do Not Call (DNC) Registry provisions apply. Before sending marketing calls, texts, or faxes to a Singapore number, you must check it against the relevant DNC register, unless you hold clear and unambiguous consent from that individual in evidential form. A confirmation of results is valid for a set window (currently 30 days), after which you must check again. Since the 2020 amendments, DNC breaches sit under the same administrative penalty regime as the data protection provisions, so this is no longer a minor compliance footnote.

Step 12: Train Employees on PDPA Obligations

Most breaches are not the work of sophisticated attackers. They happen because someone emailed the wrong attachment, reused a weak password, or fell for a phishing message. According to Verizon’s Data Breach Investigations Report, the human element is involved in the majority of breaches year after year. Training is the control that addresses the largest attack surface you have, which is your own staff. Run onboarding training for new hires, refreshers for everyone, and role-specific sessions for teams that handle sensitive personal data. Document attendance. Under the Accountability Obligation, the PDPC will ask what you did to prevent the incident, and a training record is a concrete answer.

Step 13: Review Third-Party Vendor and Data Intermediary Contracts

You remain accountable for personal data even when a data intermediary processes it for you. Every vendor that touches personal data on your behalf, cloud hosts, CRM providers, payroll processors, and a consent management platform needs a contract that imposes PDPA-grade protection and retention duties. Review these agreements, not once, but on a schedule. A vendor that changes its subprocessors or data locations can move you out of compliance without you ever signing anything.

Step 14: Conduct Regular Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs)

A Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA) is a structured review of the privacy risks in a new project, product, or processing activity, carried out before you launch rather than after something breaks. The PDPC recommends DPIAs as good practice, and they are close to essential for anything high-risk: large-scale profiling, sensitive data, new AI systems, or novel data-sharing arrangements. Document the risks you identified and the mitigations you applied. A DPIA that lives only in someone’s head provides no defense.

Step 15: Audit and Continuously Review Compliance

Compliance is a state you maintain, not a milestone you pass. Schedule periodic internal audits against this checklist, test your controls, and feed the findings back into your policies. Regulations shift, the NRIC deadline and the evolving breach thresholds are recent proof, and your own data footprint grows as the business does. An annual audit at a minimum, with a lighter quarterly review of high-risk areas, keeps the program alive instead of letting it decay between incidents.

SOC 2, ISO 27001 and HIPAA done for you. Fixed fee, 100% audit pass rate.

Audit-ready in 6 weeks. Not 6 months.

Documentation Required for PDPA Compliance

The PDPA is, in practice, an evidence regime. When the PDPC investigates, it asks to see documents, and the absence of a document is often treated as the absence of the control. Core paperwork every compliant organisation should hold includes the data inventory and processing register, the privacy notice and internal data protection policy, consent records tied to specific purposes, the DPO appointment and contact publication, the retention schedule, DPIA outputs, training logs, vendor contracts with intermediary clauses, access and correction request logs, and the breach response plan with a record of any incidents assessed.

Insider Note: The document regulators reach for first is rarely the glossy privacy policy. It is the data inventory and the consent records, because those reveal whether the policy describes reality or merely aspiration. Invest your effort where the scrutiny actually lands.

Common Mistakes to Avoid When Using a PDPA Checklist

The most frequent mistake is treating the checklist as a one-time project. Teams complete it, file it, and never revisit it, then a new system or a new vendor introduces a gap. A checklist you do not re-run is a snapshot of a compliance state that no longer exists.

A second mistake is confusing documentation with implementation. Writing a breach response plan is not the same as being able to execute it under pressure in three days. A third is copying a generic template, often a GDPR one, without adapting it to Singapore’s specific obligations, deadlines, and thresholds. And a fourth, surprisingly common, is naming a DPO on paper but giving that person no time, budget, or authority to actually do the job. The title without the mandate satisfies nobody, least of all the PDPC.

Downloadable PDPA Compliance Checklist Template

This article doubles as your template. Each of the 15 steps above maps to a checklist item you can lift into a spreadsheet or a shared task board. Structure it in four columns: the control, the responsible person, the current status (not started, in progress, complete), and the date of last review. That last column is what turns a static document into a living program.

For a version tailored to your sector and data footprint, Axipro’s Singapore compliance team maintains checklist templates aligned to the PDPA’s current obligations and the 2026 to 2027 deadline changes. A tailored checklist beats a generic one precisely because it reflects the systems you actually run.

How to Use the PDPA Checklist for Internal Audits

An internal audit turns the checklist from a to-do list into an assurance tool. Start by assigning each of the 15 controls to a named owner and asking a single question of each: can you show me the evidence? Don’t describe it, show it. The policy, the consent log, the training record, the DPIA. If the evidence exists and is current, the control passes. If it exists but is stale, or lives only in conversation, the control fails.

Score each control, list the gaps, assign remediation owners and deadlines, and set a re-test date. Then repeat on a schedule. The point of an internal audit is not to produce a clean report. It is to find the gaps before the PDPC does, when the cost of fixing them is a task in a tracker rather than a published enforcement decision. Reviewing the PDPC’s enforcement decisions each year keeps your audit criteria current as the Commission sharpens its posture.

Bringing the Checklist Together

PDPA compliance is not a legal abstraction. It is a set of 15 concrete controls, backed by documentation, owned by named people, and re-tested on a schedule. The organisations that get penalized are rarely the ones that have never heard of the Act. They are the ones who treated it as done. With turnover-based penalties, mandatory breach notification, and the NRIC authentication deadline all now in force or imminent, a checklist you completed once and forgot is exactly what separates a quiet compliance record from a searchable one. Run the list. Then run it again.

FAQs About the PDPA Compliance Singapore Checklist

How often should I review my PDPA compliance checklist?

At least once a year for a full review, with lighter quarterly checks on high-risk areas like security, breach readiness, and vendor contracts. Review it sooner whenever something material changes: a new system, a new data-sharing arrangement, an acquisition, or a regulatory update such as the NRIC authentication phase-out taking effect on 1 January 2027.

The checklist itself is a tool, not a legal requirement, but the underlying obligations it tracks are mandatory for every private sector organisation regardless of size. A small business faces the same core duties as a large one, including appointing a DPO and notifying the PDPC of qualifying breaches. The PDPC has penalized small and mid-sized firms, so size offers no shelter.

Nothing, directly, because an internal audit has no regulatory force. That is the point of running one. It surfaces gaps privately so you can remediate them before they become an actual contravention. Log each gap, assign an owner and a deadline, fix it, and re-test. A failed internal audit that leads to fixes is a success. The failure to avoid is the external one.

As a starting point, yes, since both frameworks share core principles like consent, purpose limitation, and breach notification. But you cannot use one unmodified. The PDPA gives you 3 calendar days to notify the regulator after assessing a notifiable breach, while the GDPR requires notification within 72 hours of awareness. The PDPA’s breach threshold triggers at 500 affected individuals or likely significant harm; the GDPR uses a risk-based test with no numeric floor. DPO appointment is universal under the PDPA but only conditional under the GDPR. Penalty ceilings differ, and cross-border transfer mechanisms are structured differently. Adapt a GDPR checklist to Singapore’s obligations rather than assuming equivalence.

The PDPC does not publish a single official checklist, but it maintains the authoritative advisory guidelines, self-assessment tools, and breach-reporting resources that any credible checklist is built from. You can access these through the Personal Data Protection Commission’s website. Use the PDPC materials as your source of truth and a structured checklist like this one to operationalize them.

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

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s

You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks works when most of the plumbing already exists and your job is to formalize it, fill the gaps, and prove it all works. It falls apart when you’re building the foundations and documenting them at the same time. Go through this table honestly before you promise a customer a date. Six weeks is realistic if… Plan for 10 to 16 weeks if… Your product runs on a major cloud provider You host on-premise or across several data centers You already use an identity provider with SSO Every tool has its own login and password You have fewer than about 50 employees You have multiple offices, subsidiaries, or products in scope One named person owns the project with 10 to 15 hours a week Compliance is “everyone’s job,” so in practice nobody owns it An engineer can give you 15 to 20 hours in weeks 3 and 4 Engineering is fully committed to a launch You only need the Security criteria You need Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy on day one Landing mostly in the right-hand column doesn’t mean you should throw the plan out. Give each week two weeks instead of one and follow the same order. What “SOC 2 Ready” Means at the End of Week 6 SOC 2 doesn’t give you a certificate. An independent CPA firm examines your controls against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and writes a report, and which of the two report types you go for decides what you can show a buyer after week 6. A Type I report checks whether your controls are designed properly on a single date. Once you’re ready, a Type I audit can start almost right away. A Type II report checks whether those controls kept working over an observation period of at least three months, and usually six to twelve. Most enterprise procurement teams want Type II in the end. Being “ready” at the end of this plan means your in-scope controls are in place, you can pull evidence for any of them on request, and your auditor is booked. From there you either start a Type I audit or open your Type II observation window. Plenty of buyers will sign with a Type I report plus a letter from your auditor saying the Type II period is underway. Important: The Type II clock doesn’t start until your controls are running. If readiness slips by a week, your Type II report slips by a week too. Founders who tell a prospect “we’ll have SOC 2 in Q3” often forget this and end up renegotiating the deal. Before Week 1: Four Decisions to Make First Settle these before the clock starts. If you change any of them halfway through, you’ll redo work. Scope. Decide which systems, teams, and data the report covers. For most SaaS companies that’s the production environment, the code repository, the identity provider, customer data stores, and any support tools that touch customer data. Corporate systems that never see customer data can usually stay out. Trust Services Criteria. Security (also called the Common Criteria) is mandatory. Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy are optional. Report type. Pick Type I if a deal is blocked right now and the buyer will accept it. If there’s no deadline, go straight to Type II. You’ll need it eventually, and skipping Type I saves you an audit fee. Owner and tooling. Name one person who’s accountable for the plan, and decide where your controls and evidence will live. The tooling choice gets its own section below. Pro Tip: Adding Criteria Only add optional criteria when a customer contract or security questionnaire asks for them. Each one brings more controls to set up and more evidence to collect, and you can widen the scope in next year’s audit. Spreadsheet or Compliance Software: Choosing Your Tracking Tool Every SOC 2 program needs a system of record, meaning one place where each control, its owner, its status, and its evidence live. You can run it yourself in a spreadsheet or a GRC platform, or have a consultant implement it for you. The right choice depends mostly on which report you’re after and how much of your team’s time you can spare. A spreadsheet is free and familiar. It also makes you understand your own environment before you automate any of it. For a Type I, or for a small team with a tight scope, a well-built spreadsheet can take you all the way to the audit. Axipro’s free GRC workbook for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the optional criteria, with evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers built in. It has no macros and opens straight in Google Sheets or Excel. A GRC platform connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repository, and HR system.