/

  / SOC 2 Board Charter Template: CC1.2 Auditor Requirements

SOC 2 Board Charter Template: CC1.2 Auditor Requirements

Most SOC 2 preparation effort goes into access controls, encryption, and vendor reviews. Then the auditor’s first evidence request arrives, and item one has nothing to do with technology: show us your board charter, your meeting minutes, and proof that your board operates independently from management. That’s CC1.2, and it causes more last-minute scrambling than almost any technical control in the framework.

This guide explains what CC1.2 requires, provides a board charter template with sample language that auditors accept, and covers the situation most startups actually face: satisfying the criterion without a traditional board of directors.

What Is a SOC 2 Board Charter and Why It Matters for CC1.2

A board charter is a formal document that defines your board’s purpose, composition, authority, meeting procedures, and oversight responsibilities. Outside of compliance, it’s a corporate governance tool and a good idea in general for companies with shareholders. 

Inside a SOC 2 audit, it’s the primary design evidence for CC1.2, the criterion that asks whether an independent body oversees management and the internal control environment.

The charter matters because CC1.2 is one of the few criteria where the control is a document plus behavior. The charter establishes the structure. The auditor then tests whether the structure operates: did the board actually meet, did it review the security program, did it challenge management? A beautifully drafted charter with no meeting minutes behind it fails just as surely as no charter at all. If you’re earlier in your preparation, our complete SOC 2 guide covers how the full audit fits together.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Understanding CC1.2: The Board Independence Criterion

CC1.2 is part of the Trust Services Criteria published by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). The criterion requires that the board of directors, in the AICPA’s words, “demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight” of how internal control is developed and how it performs. That sentence hides two separate tests.

  • Independence means the board isn’t just management wearing a second hat.
  • Active oversight means the board actually reviews and challenges the control environment instead of existing on paper. Plenty of companies pass one and fail the other.

How CC1.2 Fits Within the CC1 Control Environment

The Common Criteria run from CC1 through CC9, and the CC1 series covers the control environment: the governance and people layer everything else rests on. CC1.1 addresses integrity and ethical values, CC1.2 addresses board independence and oversight, CC1.3 covers organizational structure and reporting lines, CC1.4 covers competence and hiring, and CC1.5 covers accountability. CC1.2 is the layer that makes the other four credible. A code of conduct means little if nobody independent of management ever checks whether leadership follows it.

The COSO Principle 2 Connection

The Trust Services Criteria are built directly on the COSO Internal Control—Integrated Framework and its 17 principles. CC1.2 maps to COSO Principle 2, which carries four points of focus: the board establishes oversight responsibilities, applies relevant expertise, operates independently of management, and provides oversight of the system of internal control. Those four phrases are worth memorizing, because they’re effectively the outline of a good board charter.

Why Auditors Prioritize Board Charter Evidence

Auditors test the control environment first because failures there cascade. If governance is weak, every other control claim gets harder to trust: who approved the risk assessment, who reviewed the incident report, who held management accountable when a control slipped? An exception at CC1.2 tells the auditor that nobody independent was watching, and they’ll read the rest of your evidence with that in mind. That’s why board charter requests sit near the top of almost every evidence list.

Worth Knowing: Points of Focus

Points of focus are not pass/fail requirements. The AICPA describes them as characteristics that assist evaluation, and the 2022 revisions changed points of focus without changing any criteria. In practice, though, they function as the auditor's mental checklist, so drafting your charter against them is the safest move.

What Auditors Actually Look For in a Board Charter

Auditors don’t grade prose style. They scan for specific, verifiable commitments. Here’s what they check, roughly in order.

Documented Board Independence from Management

The charter must state how many members are independent, define what independence means (no operational role, no material financial relationship beyond board compensation or equity), and describe how independence is maintained. “The board includes members independent of management” without a definition is boilerplate; auditors want criteria they can test against actual member profiles.

Defined Oversight Responsibilities

This is the heart of CC1.2. The charter should explicitly assign the board oversight of internal control, information security, and risk management. If the charter only mentions financial oversight and strategy, it wasn’t written with SOC 2 in mind, and the auditor will notice the gap.

Clear Authority and Decision-Making Powers

What can the board approve, veto, or demand? Typical provisions include approving the risk management framework, reviewing audit results, approving executive appointments, and requiring management to report on control deficiencies. Authority without teeth reads as decorative.

Meeting Cadence and Quorum Requirements

The charter should commit to a minimum meeting frequency (quarterly is the common standard) and define a quorum. This clause matters more than founders expect, because it’s the one auditors test directly against your calendar: if the charter says quarterly and you met twice last year, that’s an exception you wrote for yourself.

Committee Structures

Larger organizations delegate through audit, risk, and compensation committees, each with its own mini-charter. Smaller companies don’t need committees, but if your charter mentions them, they must exist and produce minutes. Never copy a public-company template with a phantom audit committee.

Conflict of Interest Provisions

A disclosure and recusal process for conflicts, usually paired with an annual attestation. This clause supports the independence claim: independence isn’t a one-time status, it’s maintained through disclosed and managed conflicts.

Evidence of Board Member Expertise and Qualifications

COSO’s “applies relevant expertise” point of focus means the board should be able to ask probing questions about security and risk, not just finance. Charters increasingly include a skills expectation clause, and auditors may request member bios to corroborate it.

Insider Note: The most common CC1.2 failure pattern isn’t a missing charter. It’s a charter created and signed two weeks before the audit window with zero meeting history behind it. Auditors see the document creation date, and a Type II report tests activity across the whole period, not paperwork produced at the end.

Essential Sections to Include in Your SOC 2 Board Charter Template

A CC1.2-ready charter needs eight sections. Each maps to something the auditor will test.

  • Purpose and scope statement. Why the board exists and what it governs, explicitly including oversight of internal control and the security program.
  • Board composition and independence criteria. Size, the number of independent members, and a working definition of independence.
  • Roles and responsibilities of board members. Duties of the chair, members, and any designated security or risk lead, including fiduciary duty language.
  • Oversight of internal control and risk management. The board’s obligation to review the risk assessment, security program status, audit results, and remediation of deficiencies.
  • Oversight of management performance. How the board evaluates the CEO and holds management accountable for control failures, which is the independence test in action.
  • Meeting procedures and documentation requirements. Frequency, quorum, agenda-setting, and a commitment that minutes are taken, approved, and retained.
  • Charter review and amendment process. An annual review clause with version control, so the document has a paper trail showing it actually stays alive.
  • Signatures and approval records. Adoption date, approval resolution, and signatures or documented board approval in minutes.

Free SOC 2 Board Charter Template (Downloadable)

The template below is deliberately compact. Auditors prefer a two-page charter your board actually follows over a fifteen-page document copied from a public company. You can read the full text here, or download the editable board charter template (.docx) to adapt directly:

Replace bracketed items, delete anything that doesn’t reflect reality, and have the board formally adopt it in a documented meeting.

BOARD CHARTER OF [COMPANY LEGAL NAME] · Adopted [date] · Version [1.0]

  1. Purpose and scope. The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of [Company] provides independent oversight of management, corporate strategy, risk management, and the design and performance of the Company’s system of internal control, including its information security and compliance programs.
  2. Composition and independence. The Board consists of [number] members, of whom at least [number] are independent. A member is independent if they hold no operational or employment role at the Company and have no material financial relationship with it other than board compensation or equity ownership. Members annually confirm their independence status in writing.
  3. Roles and responsibilities. Members act in the best interests of the Company consistent with their fiduciary duties, prepare for and attend meetings, and maintain confidentiality. The Chair sets agendas, ensures minutes are recorded and approved, and facilitates independent judgment in discussions.
  4. Oversight of internal control and risk management. The Board reviews, at least [quarterly], management’s reports on the information security program, the risk assessment and risk treatment plans, results of internal and external audits, significant incidents, and the remediation status of identified control deficiencies. The Board may direct management to take corrective action and require follow-up reporting.
  5. Oversight of management. The Board evaluates the performance of the [CEO/executive team] at least annually, including performance against security and compliance objectives, and approves the appointment or removal of executive officers.
  6. Meetings and documentation. The Board meets at least [four] times per year. A quorum is [a majority] of members. Minutes recording attendance, matters reviewed, decisions, and action items are prepared for every meeting, approved at the following meeting, and retained for at least [seven] years.
  7. Conflicts of interest. Members disclose actual or potential conflicts as they arise and annually in writing, and recuse themselves from related deliberations and decisions. Disclosures and recusals are recorded in the minutes.
  8. Review and amendment. The Board reviews this charter at least annually and records its reapproval or amendment, with version and date, in the minutes. Amendments require approval by [a majority] of the Board.

Approved by resolution of the Board on [date]. [Signature blocks or reference to adoption minutes]

How to Customize the Template for Your Organization

Only promise what you’ll actually do. If quarterly meetings are unrealistic, write “at least three times per year” and hit it, because every unfulfilled promise in the charter becomes a potential exception. Match the document to your legal reality too: an LLC managed by members should reference its operating agreement and governing body rather than inventing a board that doesn’t legally exist. And strip out any committee language unless the committees are real. A phantom audit committee is one of the fastest ways to lose an auditor’s benefit of the doubt.

Sample Language Auditors Accept

For the oversight clause, language along these lines works because it’s specific and testable:

At each regular meeting, management shall report to the Board on the status of the information security program, material changes to the risk assessment, significant incidents, and the remediation status of known control deficiencies. The Board shall review and challenge these reports and document its review in the minutes.

Notice the verbs: report, review, challenge, document. Each one generates evidence. Vague alternatives like “the board supports a strong culture of security” generate nothing an auditor can test.

Supporting Evidence Auditors Request Alongside the Charter

The charter is design evidence. Operating evidence proves the design ran. Expect requests for board meeting minutes covering the audit period, showing security and internal control on the agenda rather than just fundraising and product. Alongside those, auditors want attendance records (usually captured in the minutes, which prove you hit quorum) and independence attestations: annual confirmations from independent members that no disqualifying relationships exist.

If your charter establishes committees, be ready to produce committee reports showing they met and reported to the full board. Finally, expect a request for annual charter review documentation, a minuted agenda item or resolution showing the charter was reviewed and reapproved or amended.

Pro Tip: Internal control and Security Program Review

Put a standing item called “Internal control and security program review” on every board agenda and set the meetings as recurring calendar events for the entire audit window now. Minutes written against a standing agenda item generate CC1.2 evidence automatically, and you'll never reconstruct oversight after the fact, which auditors can usually detect anyway.

Common Mistakes That Cause CC1.2 Exceptions

Five patterns account for most CC1.2 findings, and most of them come down to a gap between what the charter says and what the company did.

  • Generic or boilerplate language is the most obvious one. A downloaded public-company charter referencing shareholders, three committees, and NYSE listing rules doesn’t fit a 30-person SaaS company, and it signals the document is decorative. Auditors read a lot of charters. They can tell.
  • Missing meeting evidence is the most common. The charter promises quarterly meetings; the company can produce minutes for one, and in a Type II every gap in the cadence during the window is an exception you wrote for yourself.
  • Undocumented independence shows up constantly at startups: every board member is a founder or executive, and nothing in the file explains how oversight of management works regardless. Related to it is undefined oversight of management, where the charter covers strategy and finance but never says the board reviews internal control, security, or management performance. That’s the exact subject of CC1.2, so its absence is hard to miss.
  • Finally, no review cadence or version control. A charter last touched four years ago, with no review clause and no record of reapproval, undermines the whole claim that governance is active rather than archived.

Board Charter Requirements for Startups Without a Traditional Board

Here’s the honest answer most vendors dodge: plenty of companies pass SOC 2 without a conventional independent board, but nobody gets to skip CC1.2. Security is mandatory in every SOC 2 audit; all nine Common Criteria come with it, and CC1.2 is one of them. What flexes is the structure that satisfies it. COSO’s own guidance recognizes that smaller entities may achieve board oversight through different governance arrangements, and experienced auditors apply that flexibility.

Advisory Board Alternatives

The most common substitute is an advisory board or governance committee that includes at least one or two members with no operational role: an investor, an experienced outside advisor, a fractional CISO acting in a governance capacity. Give it a charter using the same template above, meet quarterly, keep minutes, and have it genuinely review the security program. The label matters less than the independence and the paper trail.

Founder-Led Governance Documentation

If even an advisory board isn’t feasible, the fallback is a formally chartered management oversight function with documented compensating factors: a standing governance meeting with fixed agenda and minutes, an external party (investor or advisor) receiving and reviewing security reporting, and clear escalation and accountability rules. This is the weakest position of the three and the one where auditor acceptance varies most.

When Auditors Accept Substitute Governance Structures

Important: Auditor acceptance of substitute structures is a judgment call, and different CPA firms draw the line in different places. Agree on your governance structure with your auditor during the readiness or scoping phase, in writing, before the observation window opens. Discovering during fieldwork that your auditor expected an independent member is the expensive way to learn this.

How to Implement Your Board Charter Before the Audit

The charter itself takes a week. The evidence takes months, which is why timing drives everything here. A realistic sequence:

Step 1: Draft using the template. Adapt the template above to your actual structure. One or two review cycles with leadership and, ideally, your auditor or readiness consultant. Budget one to two weeks.

Step 2: Get board approval and signatures. Adopt the charter through a documented resolution at a board meeting. The adoption minutes are themselves evidence.

Step 3: Schedule and document initial meetings. Hold the first oversight meeting before your Type II window opens, then follow the charter’s cadence. For a six-month window on a quarterly cadence, that means at least two in-window meetings with minutes.

Step 4: Store evidence in an audit-ready repository. Minutes, attestations, and charter versions belong in your GRC platform or evidence folder, mapped to CC1.2, dated, and retrievable in minutes rather than days.

Work backward from your audit date. If your window opens in under a quarter and no governance structure exists yet, that’s a scoping conversation, and it’s exactly the kind of sequencing our SOC 2 compliance checklist is built to prevent.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Board Charter Best Practices for SOC 2 Type II

Type II changes the question from “does the structure exist” to “did it run for the entire period.” That mostly means discipline about evidence. Every scheduled meeting gets held, minuted, and filed within days, because reconstructed minutes have a distinctive smell and auditors have seen plenty of them. Nobody enjoys writing minutes. Write them anyway.

The minutes also need to show a board that reacts to real inputs, not one that rubber-stamps a slide. An incident review, a change to the risk register, a pentest result, follow-ups on remediation items from the last meeting: that’s what continuous oversight looks like on paper. And the same rhythm pays off elsewhere in the audit. Board review of the risk assessment supports CC3, review of monitoring reports supports CC4, and the reporting lines the charter establishes support CC1.3, so one governance habit feeds evidence across the five Trust Services Criteria categories.

CC1.2 rewards companies that treat governance as an operating habit rather than an audit artifact. A short, honest charter, a quarterly meeting that actually reviews security, and minutes filed on time will pass. A polished template with no life behind it won’t. If you’d rather compress the whole process, structure included, Axipro’s SOC 2 compliance services take companies from no governance documentation to audit-ready, with charter drafting, meeting cadence design, and evidence mapping handled as part of readiness.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is a formal Board of Directors required to pass CC1.2?

No. CC1.2 requires independent oversight of management and internal control, not a specific legal structure. Corporations typically have boards anyway, but LLCs and early-stage companies can satisfy the criterion through an advisory board, governance committee, or documented oversight function, provided the arrangement is chartered, independent where possible, and evidenced by minutes.

Usually, yes. Most auditors accept an advisory board or governance committee that includes members without operational roles, follows a charter, meets on a defined cadence, and documents its review of the security program. Confirm the structure with your specific auditor during scoping, because acceptance thresholds vary between firms

Annually. Include a review clause in the charter itself, put the review on a board agenda once a year, and record the reapproval or amendment in the minutes with a version number and date. The review record is evidence auditors specifically request.

Quarterly is the de facto standard, and it’s what most charters commit to. Auditors primarily test your actual cadence against your charter’s promise, so a charter that commits to three meetings per year and delivers three is safer than one that promises quarterly and delivers two. For a Type II, meetings must occur within the observation window.

CC1.1 covers the organization’s commitment to integrity and ethical values, evidenced by a code of conduct and acknowledgments. CC1.3 covers how management, with board oversight, establishes structures, reporting lines, and authorities. CC1.2 sits between them: it’s specifically about the board being independent from management and actively overseeing internal control.

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.