/

  / SOC 2 Report vs. Certification: What You Actually Get After the Audit

SOC 2 Report vs. Certification: What You Actually Get After the Audit

SOC 2 is not a certification, and no auditor will ever hand you a SOC 2 certificate. What you receive at the end of the audit is an attestation report: a detailed document, often 60 to 100 pages long, in which a licensed CPA firm expresses a professional opinion on your controls. That distinction sounds like pedantry until a prospect’s security team asks to see your “certificate” and you have nothing that looks like one. This article explains exactly what a SOC 2 report is, what it contains, how it differs from an ISO 27001 certificate, and how to talk about your SOC 2 status without misrepresenting it.

SOC 2 Report vs. Certification

Is SOC 2 a Certification or a Report?

The Common Misconception About “SOC 2 Certification”

Search volume tells the story: far more people look for “SOC 2 certification” than for “SOC 2 attestation,” and sales teams, procurement questionnaires, and even some auditors use the certification shorthand daily. The misconception is understandable. Every other major framework in the compliance stack, from ISO 27001 to PCI DSS, ends in something that looks like a pass. SOC 2 does not work that way, and treating it as if it does leads to awkward conversations during vendor due diligence.

Why SOC 2 Is Technically an Attestation, Not a Certification

A certification is a binary judgment issued by an accredited body: you meet the standard, or you do not. SOC 2 sits under the AICPA’s attestation standards, primarily SSAE 18 and its later amendments (SSAE 21 updated the relevant examination sections), specifically AT-C section 105 and AT-C section 205. Under those standards, an independent service auditor examines your controls and reports an opinion on them. Nobody “passes.” The auditor attests to what they found, in writing, with evidence. The output is a report, and the report is the entire deliverable.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Understanding the SOC 2 Attestation Model

What Is an Attestation Engagement?

An attestation engagement is a formal examination in which a practitioner evaluates subject matter prepared by another party against defined criteria, then issues a written conclusion. In SOC 2, the subject matter is your system and its controls, the criteria are the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy), and the party preparing the subject matter is you, the service organization. Security is the only mandatory category; the other four are scoped in based on your service commitments.

The Role of the AICPA and Licensed CPA Firms

The AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants) owns the SOC framework and the attestation standards behind it, but it does not perform audits and does not issue anything to your company. Only a licensed CPA firm can conduct a SOC 2 examination and sign the resulting opinion. That licensing requirement is the quality mechanism: the firm’s professional liability, independence rules, and peer review obligations stand behind the report. In practice, this means the assurance you get is only as strong as the auditor’s reputation and independence posture, which is why enterprise buyers often look at who signed the report almost as carefully as they look at what it says.

How Attestation Differs from Certification and Accreditation

The three terms describe different assurance models.

  • Certification means an accredited certification body confirms conformity with a standard and issues a certificate, as happens with ISO 27001.
  • Accreditation is one level up: it is the process by which national bodies, such as those coordinated through the International Accreditation Forum, authorize those certification bodies to certify in the first place.
  • Attestation involves no certificate and no accreditation chain. A CPA firm examines evidence and expresses an opinion under professional standards. The credibility comes from the auditor’s license and independence, not from a badge.
What you really get after SOC 2 Audit

What You Actually Receive After a SOC 2 Audit

The SOC 2 Attestation Report Explained

The deliverable is a confidential, restricted-use document addressed to your management and intended for your customers, their auditors, and other informed parties. It is dense by design. A prospect’s risk team reads it to understand what your system does, which controls you operate, how the auditor tested them, and what the auditor found. It replaces a certificate with something far more useful: evidence.

Key Components of the Final Report

Independent service auditor’s opinion. The first section, usually two to three pages, states the auditor’s formal conclusion on whether your system description is fairly presented and whether your controls were suitably designed (and, for Type 2, operating effectively). This is the section report readers check first.

Management’s assertion. A signed statement in which your leadership formally asserts that the system description is accurate and that controls meet the applicable criteria. SSAE 18 made this management assertion a mandatory element, which means responsibility for the description sits with you, not the auditor.

System description. The longest narrative section was prepared by management against the AICPA’s SOC 2 description criteria. It covers the services provided, infrastructure, software, people, data, processes, subservice organizations, and complementary user entity controls.

Trust Services Criteria and controls tested. A mapping of each in-scope criterion to the specific controls you operate. This is where scoping decisions become visible: a report covering Security only looks very different from one covering all five categories.

Results of testing. For Type 2 reports, a control-by-control table showing the tests the auditor performed and the results, including any exceptions. Sophisticated readers spend most of their time here, because exceptions and the auditor’s response to them reveal more than the opinion page does.

What a SOC 2 Report Is NOT (No Certificate, No Logo, No Pass/Fail Badge)

There is no official SOC 2 certificate, no numbered credential, and no register of “certified” companies you can be listed in. The AICPA licenses a standard SOC logo that service organizations may display for a limited time after report issuance, but the logo confirms only that an examination took place. It says nothing about the opinion inside. Anyone selling you a “SOC 2 certificate” as a standalone artifact is selling something the framework does not produce.

Important: If a vendor shows you a one-page SOC 2 “certificate” during due diligence, treat it as a red flag, not a shortcut. Ask for the full report under NDA and read the opinion and the exceptions table. A certificate-style summary with no underlying report is meaningless, and a real report reduced to a badge may be hiding a qualified opinion.

SOC 2 Report vs. ISO 27001 Certificate: A Side-by-Side Comparison

The confusion between attestation and certification usually resolves the moment you place the two deliverables side by side. ISO/IEC 27001 produces a certificate issued by an accredited certification body on a three-year cycle with annual surveillance audits. SOC 2 produces a detailed, restricted report that is reissued following a fresh examination every year. The ISO 27001 certificate is a short public document that names the standard, the scope, the certification body, and the validity dates; the SOC 2 report is a long confidential document that lets a reader recreate the auditor’s reasoning. One is a pass mark; the other is an argument.

Insider Note: Companies selling into both the US and EMEA increasingly run the two programs on a shared control set and evidence base. The overlap between the Trust Services Criteria and Annex A controls is substantial, and compliance automation platforms map one to the other. The marginal cost of the second framework is far lower than the first, and holding both closes more procurement doors than either alone.

Types of SOC 2 Reports You Can Receive

SOC 2 Type 1 Report: Point-in-Time Deliverable

A Type 1 report evaluates whether your controls were suitably designed as of a single specified date. It answers “were the right controls in place on that day,” not “did they work overtime.” Type 1 is typically a first-audit stepping stone that satisfies early customer requests while you accumulate the operating history that a Type 2 requires.

SOC 2 Type 2 Report: Period-of-Time Deliverable

A Type 2 report adds operating effectiveness: the auditor tests whether controls actually functioned throughout a defined review period, commonly three to twelve months. This is the report enterprise buyers mean when they ask for “your SOC 2.” A first Type 2 often covers a shorter window (three or six months) so the report exists sooner, with subsequent examinations settling into an annual twelve-month rhythm.

Types of Auditor Opinions in Your SOC 2 Report

Because SOC 2 has no pass or fail, the auditor’s opinion is the closest thing to a grade, and there are four possible outcomes defined under the attestation standards.

Unqualified Opinion

The clean result, and the one every service organization wants. The auditor concludes that the description is fairly presented and that controls were suitably designed and operating effectively. An unqualified opinion can still contain individual test exceptions; the auditor simply judged them immaterial to the overall conclusion, often because compensating controls held.

Qualified Opinion

The auditor found one or more material problems, but they were not pervasive. The report reads as “everything holds, except for the following.” Qualified opinions are more common than most first-timers expect, particularly in year one, and a well-remediated qualification is survivable in sales conversations if you can show what you fixed.

Adverse Opinion

Material problems that are also pervasive. The auditor is telling report readers that they cannot rely on the system as described. Adverse opinions are rare in practice because organizations heading toward one usually pause the engagement and remediate rather than take the report.

Disclaimer of Opinion

The auditor could not obtain sufficient evidence to form any opinion at all, usually because of scope limitations imposed by the organization. A disclaimer is not neutral; experienced report readers treat it as a serious warning sign.

Worth Knowing: An Unqualified Opinion

An unqualified opinion with disclosed exceptions is normal and defensible. Under the attestation standards, an exception only forces a qualification when the auditor judges the resulting misstatement material, and it only becomes adverse when material and pervasive. Savvy buyers read the exceptions table and management's responses, not just the opinion page, so document your remediation of every exception in the report itself where possible.

How to Use Your SOC 2 Report After the Audit

Sharing the Report with Customers and Prospects

The report is your primary trust asset in enterprise sales. Most organizations distribute it through a trust center or a controlled request process, gate it behind an NDA, and log who received which version. Proactively offering the report during security review shortens procurement cycles far more than any badge does.

NDA Requirements and Distribution Restrictions

SOC 2 is a restricted-use report. It contains your system architecture, control inventory, and test results, which are precisely the information you do not want circulating freely. Standard practice is to share it only under a non-disclosure agreement, either a standing mutual NDA or a click-through acknowledgment in a trust portal, and to watermark distributed copies. Given the volume of third-party breach reporting in the Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report and similar studies, treating the report as sensitive intellectual property is not paranoia; it is the same care your customers apply to yours.

Using SOC 2 Reports in Vendor Due Diligence

On the receiving side, the report is a working document for vendor risk management. Reviewers map the vendor’s in-scope criteria to their own risk requirements, check the opinion, read the exceptions, and verify the complementary user entity controls, the items the vendor’s assurance depends on you performing. A clean opinion with unimplemented user entity controls on your side still leaves you exposed.

Leveraging a SOC 3 Report for Public Marketing

If you want something you can publish, that is what SOC 3 exists for. A SOC 3 is a general-use summary derived from the same SOC 2 Type 2 examination, containing management’s assertion and the auditor’s opinion but stripped of the detailed system description and test results. You can post it on your website without an NDA, which makes it the legitimate public-facing counterpart to the restricted SOC 2 report.

How Long Your SOC 2 Report Remains Valid

The 12-Month Reporting Period

Strictly speaking, a SOC 2 report never expires; nothing in the attestation standards stamps a validity date on it. The market imposes one anyway. Buyers and their auditors treat a report as current for roughly twelve months from the end of the review period, after which they ask for a fresh one, and the AICPA limits use of its SOC logo to a defined window after issuance. The practical consequence is an annual audit cycle.

Bridge Letters Between Audit Cycles

A bridge letter (or gap letter) covers the interval between the end of your last report period and the issuance of the next report. Management, not the auditor, signs it, asserting that no material changes to the control environment occurred during the gap. Bridge letters conventionally cover no more than about three months and carry no independent assurance, so they buy time between reports rather than replacing one.

Pro Tip: Bridge Letter Template

Draft your bridge letter template before you need it, and time your review period so it ends a quarter before your customers' most common fiscal year-end. Most gap-letter fire drills happen because the report period was chosen for the auditor's convenience rather than the customers' audit calendars, and a badly timed period guarantees a bridge letter request every single year.

Why the “Certification” Language Persists in the Market

The shorthand survives because it is useful. “We are SOC 2 certified” fits on a slide; “we received an unqualified SOC 2 Type 2 attestation report” does not. Compliance vendors also optimize their content for what people actually search, which reinforces the loop. And since ISO 27001, PCI DSS, and most other frameworks genuinely are certifications, buyers pattern-match SOC 2 into the same mental category. The terminology is technically wrong but commercially sticky, and it is not going away.

 

How to Communicate SOC 2 Status Accurately to Stakeholders

Accurate phrasing is simple once you have it. Say your organization completed a SOC 2 Type 2 examination or received an unqualified SOC 2 Type 2 report, and name the trust services categories in scope. Avoid “certified,” “accredited,” and any invented badge. In contracts and security questionnaires, precision matters more: misdescribing an attestation as a certification in a signed document can create representations you cannot support, and general counsel teams increasingly flag this in redlines.

 

The Bottom Line

SOC 2 delivers a report, not a certificate: an independent CPA firm’s written opinion on your system description and controls, backed by documented testing. Understanding the attestation model tells you what to expect after the audit (an opinion, an assertion, a system description, and test results), how it differs from an ISO 27001 certificate, how long the market will treat it as current, and how to share it safely. Get the language right, and the deliverable becomes exactly what it was designed to be: the most detailed trust document your company produces.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I say my company is "SOC 2 certified"?

You should not, strictly speaking. SOC 2 is an attestation, so the accurate phrasing is that you completed a SOC 2 examination and received a report. The shorthand is widespread and rarely challenged in casual conversation, but avoid it in contracts, questionnaires, and anything legally binding.

No certificate exists. The AICPA offers a standard logo that service organizations can display for a limited period after an examination, but it confirms only that an examination occurred, not what opinion resulted.

A licensed CPA firm acting as the independent service auditor. The AICPA sets the standards but issues nothing to individual companies.

Annually, by market convention. Reports have no formal expiry, but customers treat them as stale roughly twelve months after the end of the review period, so most organizations run a continuous yearly examination cycle.

Not in the pass/fail sense. You always receive a report; the variable is the opinion inside it. A qualified, adverse, or disclaimer opinion signals problems of increasing severity, and an unqualified opinion is the outcome buyers expect.

No. It is a restricted-use document shared under NDA with customers, prospects, and their auditors. If you need a publicly distributable version, obtain a SOC 3 report from the same examination.

The report is the full deliverable with the opinion, system description, and test results. An attestation or bridge letter is a short management-signed summary, often used to cover the gap between audit cycles, and it carries no independent auditor assurance.

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.