/ What Are the Deliverables for a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement?

What Are the Deliverables for a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement?

After a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 engagement, there are two documents out of the whole pile that actually close deals: the SOC 2 attestation report and the ISO 27001 certificate. Everything else your engagement produces exists to create those two, support them, or keep them alive for another year.

Companies routinely ask their auditor for a SOC 2 certificate, which doesn’t exist. They send a prospect their full ISMS documentation when a one-page certificate would have done. They pay for six months of readiness work and then can’t say what they’re holding at the end of it.

So here’s the full list. What a SOC 2 engagement produces, what an ISO 27001 engagement produces, what a combined program produces, and who gets to see each one.

SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement

Understanding SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement Outputs

The Core Difference: Report vs. Certificate

SOC 2 is an attestation. A licensed CPA firm examines your controls against the Trust Services Criteria under standards set by the AICPA, then writes up what it found and signs an opinion. No certificate. No logo from the AICPA. No pass or fail stamp. What you get is the report, and it usually runs 60 to 120 pages.

ISO 27001 is a certification. An accredited certification body audits your Information Security Management System (ISMS) against ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and if you conform, it issues a certificate of registration. The certificate itself is a page or two. All the detail lives behind it, in your ISMS documentation and the audit reports the certification body writes as it goes.

SOC 2 Engagement Deliverables

SOC 2 Engagement Deliverables

The SOC 2 Attestation Report

The report is the engagement. The AICPA’s illustrative SOC 2 report lays out the standard structure: auditor’s report, management’s assertion, system description, the Trust Services Criteria in scope, and the controls tested with their results.

  • A Type I covers control design at one point in time.
  • A Type II covers whether those controls actually operated over a period, usually three to twelve months, and most enterprise buyers now won’t accept anything else.

Independent Auditor’s Opinion Letter

First section of the report, and the first thing anyone experienced turns to. It gives the scope, the examination period, and the auditor’s conclusion.

  • An unqualified opinion means the description held up and the controls worked.
  • A qualified opinion means the auditor found something material, and every serious reviewer will want to talk about it.

Management Assertion

Your leadership signs a written statement stating that the system description is accurate and that the controls were properly designed and are operating. It reads like a formality, and it isn’t. The auditor’s entire examination runs against what management asserts here, so overstating anything creates real exposure.

System Description

Usually the longest part of the report, and you write it, not the auditor. It covers the services in scope, your infrastructure, software, people, processes, how data moves, which subservice organizations you depend on, and the complementary user entity controls your customers have to run on their side for your controls to hold up.

Trust Services Criteria Applied

Security (the Common Criteria) is in every SOC 2. Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional, and the report names exactly which ones you picked. Whatever you decide during scoping ends up printed in a document your customers read for the next several years.

Description of Tests of Controls and Results (Type II)

The matrix: every control, what the auditor did to test it, and what came back, including exceptions. Reviewers spend most of their time here, because the exceptions tell them things the opinion letter won’t.

Bridge Letter / Gap Letter

Your report covers a fixed window, so one ending December 31 leaves a hole for a customer doing diligence in June. A bridge letter from your management, not the auditor, confirms that nothing material changed in the control environment between the report’s end date and today. You’ll write these often enough to keep a template.

Management Letter and Observations

Plenty of auditors also send an internal-only letter covering observations, minor exceptions, and suggestions that never reached the threshold of a qualified opinion. It’s the closest thing to free consulting you’ll get before next year’s audit starts.

Insider Note: Ask early whether your auditor issues a management letter, and whether exceptions land in the report body or only in that letter. Firms handle this differently, and the answer decides what your customers see versus what stays behind your firewall. It rarely comes up in the proposal, but it changes how the finished report reads to a buyer.

ISO 27001 Engagement Deliverables

ISO 27001 Engagement Deliverables

ISO 27001 Certificate of Registration

The document everyone asks for. It names the certified legal entity, states the ISMS scope, identifies the certification body, carries an accreditation mark from a body recognized under the International Accreditation Forum such as UKAS or ANAB, and shows the validity dates. It’s good for three years as long as you pass annual surveillance audits.

Read the scope statement carefully, on your own certificate as much as anyone else’s. A certificate covering one office or one product line says nothing about the rest of the business.

Statement of Applicability (SoA)

After the certificate, this is the document buyers request most. The Statement of Applicability runs through all 93 Annex A controls in ISO/IEC 27001:2022, says which apply to you, justifies the ones you excluded, and records where each stands. Auditors use it as the map of your control environment, and larger customers increasingly want to see it or a summary of it during diligence.

Risk Assessment and Risk Treatment Plan

Your methodology, the register it produced, and the Risk Treatment Plan showing what you decided to do about each significant risk: mitigate it with a control, transfer it, avoid it, or accept it. ISO 27001 is built around risk, so these documents are what justify every control decision recorded in the SoA.

Information Security Management System (ISMS) Documentation

The policy and procedure set, plus the operational records that prove any of it happens. Information security policy, access control, incident management, supplier security, business continuity, and the rest. When a consultancy builds your ISMS, this pile is most of what they hand over at the end.

Internal Audit Report

You have to audit yourself before the certification body does. The internal audit report, done in-house or outsourced, is a mandatory record and one of the first things an external auditor asks to see.

Management Review Records

Minutes and outputs from leadership’s formal review of the ISMS: audit results, changes in risk, incidents, and what the business decided to do about them. Missing records, or records that were obviously written the week before the audit, are a reliable way to collect a nonconformity.

Stage 1 Audit Report (Documentation Review)

Stage 1 is a readiness check. The auditor reads your scope, risk assessment, Statement of Applicability, and the evidence that you’ve run an internal audit and a management review, then decides whether you’re ready for Stage 2. The report comes back as a list of things to close first.

Stage 2 Audit Report (Certification Audit)

Stage 2 tests whether any of it is true. The auditor samples evidence across your operation to confirm the controls you selected are running, then writes up the findings with a certification recommendation.

Surveillance Audit Reports

In years one and two, the certification body samples part of the ISMS rather than reviewing the whole thing, checking that it still runs and still improves. Each visit produces a report, and each report becomes evidence at the next one.

Nonconformity and Corrective Action Reports

Findings are graded.

  • A minor nonconformity is an isolated slip.
  • A major nonconformity points to something systemic and can hold up or suspend certification.

Each one generates a corrective action plan (CAP) with root cause analysis and proof you closed it, and the auditor will pull those up next visit.

Important: Certificates get suspended between audits. Skip a surveillance visit, leave a major nonconformity open, or let the ISMS go quiet for six months, and the certificate is at risk well before the three years are up. You don’t earn it once. You keep earning it.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Shared Deliverables in a Combined SOC 2 + ISO 27001 Engagement

Somewhere around 70 to 80 percent of the underlying work is the same for both frameworks, which is why combined programs have become the default for companies selling into the US and internationally at once. Run properly, you end up with one set of artifacts instead of two stacks that slowly drift apart.

Unified Policy and Procedure Set

One set of policies mapped to the Trust Services Criteria and Annex A at the same time. Keep two sets, and you’ll maintain both badly, and eventually they’ll contradict each other in front of an auditor.

Consolidated Risk Register

A single register feeding the ISO 27001 risk treatment process and SOC 2’s risk assessment criteria under CC3. You maintain it once, and both auditors sample from it.

Shared Evidence Repository

Access reviews, change tickets, training records, vendor assessments, all collected once and tagged to both frameworks, usually inside a GRC platform like Vanta or Drata. Most of the cost savings people expect from a combined engagement actually come from here.

Combined Control Matrix / Crosswalk

A mapping document showing how each control you’ve implemented satisfies specific Trust Services Criteria and specific Annex A controls. Without the crosswalk, “collect once, comply twice” stays a slogan.

Integrated Gap Assessment Report

One readiness assessment scored against both frameworks, producing one prioritized remediation list rather than two that compete for the same engineers.

Pro Tip: Line up your SOC 2 Type II Observation

Line up your SOC 2 Type II observation window with the ISO surveillance schedule before either clock starts. Companies that stagger them by a few months end up in audit season permanently, fielding evidence requests every month of the year. One shared calendar takes a surprising amount of pressure off the team doing the collecting.

Pre-Engagement Deliverables (Readiness Phase)

Readiness has its own outputs, and they usually come from a consultancy rather than the auditor or certification body, since independence rules cap how much hands-on help the certifying party can give you.

Readiness Assessment Report

An evaluation of where you stand against every applicable requirement, with gaps rated by severity and by how much work they’ll take. This is the Readiness Assessment Report that turns “we should probably get SOC 2” into a plan with a number attached.

Scoping Document

Names the systems, locations, entities, people, and for SOC 2 the Trust Services Categories in scope. What you decide here flows straight into the system description and the scope line on your certificate, so it deserves an hour of executive attention rather than a signature.

Remediation Roadmap

The sequenced plan for closing each gap, with owners and dates, normally built backward from the date your Type II window opens or your Stage 1 audit begins.

Control Design Documentation

Written descriptions of each control: what it does, who runs it, how often, and what evidence it leaves behind. Auditors test against these descriptions, so vague control language produces exceptions you didn’t need to have.

Post-Engagement Deliverables

Final Report Distribution Package

For SOC 2, the signed report plus guidance on who can receive it, since SOC 2 reports are restricted-use documents that go out under NDA. For ISO 27001, the certificate, the certification body’s rules for using its mark, and the final audit report.

Customer-Facing Trust Documentation

Most companies build a trust page or a security packet: the ISO certificate, a SOC 3 summary if they have one, penetration test summaries, and pre-written answers to the questions everyone asks. Your engagement deliverables feed it. The packet is what sales actually sends.

Renewal and Continuous Monitoring Schedule

A Renewal and Continuous Monitoring Schedule covering the next SOC 2 observation period, surveillance dates, internal audits, management reviews, access reviews, and policy refreshes. Skip it and year two turns into the same scramble as year one, which is the thing everyone swore wouldn’t happen again.

Corrective Action Tracking

A live register of exceptions, nonconformities, and observations from every audit, with status and closure evidence. Your next SOC 2 auditor and your surveillance auditor will both open with the same question: what happened to last year’s findings?

Who Receives Each Deliverable?

Internal Stakeholders

Leadership signs the management assertion and receives the management letter, the audit reports, and any nonconformities. Security and engineering own the ISMS documentation, the control matrix, and the corrective action register. Boards now tend to expect a summary of both audit outcomes as part of cyber risk oversight.

Customers and Prospects

Customers get the SOC 2 report under NDA, the certificate freely, and a bridge letter when they ask. Bigger ones may push for the SoA, penetration test summaries, or specific policy excerpts. Almost none of them have a legitimate claim on your full ISMS documentation, and handing it over sets a precedent you’ll regret.

Regulators and Third Parties

Regulators, cyber insurers, and partners generally take the certificate and the SOC 2 report as primary evidence. Insurers have started pricing against them, and a current Type II plus a valid certificate visibly shortens the underwriting questionnaire.

Timeline of Deliverables Across the Engagement Lifecycle

Kickoff Phase Outputs

Scoping document, engagement letters, readiness assessment, and remediation roadmap. On the ISO side, your initial risk assessment and a draft SoA land here too.

Fieldwork Phase Outputs

Evidence requests and responses, control design documentation, interim findings, the Stage 1 report, and for a Type II, the evidence accumulating through the observation window itself.

Reporting Phase Outputs

Draft and final SOC 2 report, the management assertion, the Stage 2 report, the certification decision, and the certificate. This phase compresses badly when fieldwork evidence was messy, which is the most common reason timelines slip.

Ongoing Maintenance Outputs

Bridge letters, surveillance reports, annual internal audit reports, management review records, updated risk assessments and SoA versions, and next year’s Type II. The stream doesn’t stop after certification. It settles into a rhythm.

Worth Knowing: SOC 2 reports carry no formal expiration date, but the market treats one as stale about 12 months past the period end. That makes a Type II less a project than a subscription, and what buyers really want is an unbroken chain of reports with no uncovered months in between.

Worth Knowing: SOC 2 Reports

SOC 2 reports carry no formal expiration date, but the market treats one as stale about 12 months past the period end. That makes a Type II less a project than a subscription, and what buyers really want is an unbroken chain of reports with no uncovered months in between.

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

Schedule Your Free Assessment Today

In Summary

SOC 2 gets you a long, restricted-use report built from an opinion letter, a management assertion, a system description, and control test results, refreshed every year and bridged in between.

ISO 27001 gets you a public three-year certificate backed by the SoA, the risk treatment plan, your ISMS documentation, and the Stage 1, Stage 2, and surveillance reports behind it. Running both together adds shared artifacts, one policy set, one risk register, and one evidence repository, which is what makes doing both cheaper than doing either one twice.

Know what each document is for, who’s allowed to read it, and when the next one is due, and the whole engagement starts paying for itself in vendor reviews.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the SOC 2 report the same as an ISO 27001 certificate?

No. The SOC 2 report is a detailed attestation from a CPA firm, shared under NDA. The ISO 27001 certificate is a short public document from an accredited certification body. Related questions, completely different artifacts.

Yes, and plenty of companies now do exactly that. The CPA firm still issues the report and the certification body still issues the certificate, but one evidence collection effort, one policy set, and one audit calendar sit behind both.

A SOC 2 report covers its stated period and is generally accepted as current for around 12 months after that period ends. An ISO 27001 certificate lasts three years, assuming you pass the annual surveillance audits and keep the ISMS running.

You own the ISMS documentation, the policies, the risk register, the SoA, and the system description. The auditor keeps their workpapers. The report and certificate are issued to you, but the report carries distribution restrictions and the certificate comes with rules about how you can use the certification body’s mark.

No. The SoA is a control-by-control inventory against Annex A with justifications for anything excluded. The system description is a narrative about your services, infrastructure, and processes written for someone reading the report. Same subject matter, different structure and different audience.

Public: the certificate, a SOC 3 report if you commission one, and whatever summary you put on your trust page. Under NDA: the SOC 2 report, the SoA in most cases, bridge letters, and audit findings. Not shared at all: internal audit workpapers, the raw risk register, and detailed corrective action records.

Yes. Each one produces a report, plus any nonconformities raised and the corrective action records that close them. Updated SoA versions, internal audit reports, and management review minutes pile up alongside, and the recertification audit in year three goes back through the whole trail.

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

A consultant-grade ISO 42001 gap analysis checklist has 38 Annex A controls, roughly 80 clause-level “shall” statements, and one question attached to every line: where is the evidence, and would a certification body accept it? That last question is what separates the checklists consultants use from the free self-assessment spreadsheets that rank for the same search. This article lays out the checklist itself: what a consultant checks before the engagement starts, the clause-by-clause and control-by-control checkpoints, how evidence gets sampled, how gaps get scored, what the deliverables look like, and what fails most often. Use it to run your own assessment, or to check whether the consultant you’re about to hire is doing the job properly. What Makes a Consultant-Grade ISO 42001 Gap Analysis Checklist Different​ Depth of Evidence Review vs. Self-Assessment Tools A self-assessment tool asks whether you have an AI policy. A consultant asks to see it, checks the approval date and version, reads clause 5.2 against it, and then asks three people in engineering whether they’ve read it. The checklist item is the same. The evidence standard is not. Consultants score every item on three levels: documented, implemented, and effective. A policy that exists but nobody follows scores as “ad hoc,” not “defined.” A control that runs but produces no record scores as unverifiable, which for audit purposes is the same as absent. Self-assessment tools collapse those three levels into a single yes/no, which is why companies that score 85% on a free tool routinely receive major nonconformities at Stage 2. Alignment with Certification Body Expectations Certification bodies auditing against ISO/IEC 42001:2023 now work under ISO/IEC 42006:2025, which sets competence, audit-time, and impartiality requirements for AIMS auditors and builds on ISO/IEC 17021-1. A consultant-grade checklist is written with 42006 in mind: it organizes findings by clause and control identifier, because that’s how the auditor works, and it records evidence locations, because that’s what the auditor will sample. The practical difference shows up in the report. A gap register that says “AI governance needs improvement” is useless in front of an auditor. One that says “A.5.2 not conformant: no documented impact assessment process; two of four in-scope systems have no assessment on file” maps directly to the audit plan. Risk-Weighted Scoring Methodology Self-assessments count gaps. Consultants weight them. A missing AI policy under clause 5.2 and an incomplete competence matrix under 7.2 are both gaps, but the first will block certification and the second will earn you a minor finding. A consultant-grade checklist carries two scores per line: a maturity rating (how far the control is from working) and a certification criticality (what happens at audit if it stays this way). Effort estimates live in the remediation plan, never in the gap score, because mixing them produces a roadmap that fixes easy things first rather than important ones. Insider Note: The fastest tell that a checklist is consultant-grade rather than a marketing download is whether it has a column for evidence location. Auditors don’t accept “yes” as evidence. If the checklist has nowhere to record where the proof lives, it wasn’t built by someone who has sat through a Stage 2. Pre-Engagement Preparation Consultants Complete Before the Gap Analysis Client AI Inventory and Use Case Cataloging Nothing in the checklist works without a complete AI inventory, and it’s the input clients get wrong most often. The inventory records every AI system in use: purpose, the role you play (developer, provider, deployer, or user), data consumed, outputs produced, whether a human sits between the output and the decision, and which third-party model or API it depends on. Consultants push hard on shadow AI here: SaaS tools that added AI features, agents running under employee credentials, and internal scripts calling model APIs. Every one of those is in scope until you document why it isn’t. Defining AIMS Scope Boundaries Clause 4.3 requires a scope statement naming which AI systems, business units, locations, and lifecycle stages the AIMS covers. Consultants draft this from the inventory, not before it. Scope discipline matters commercially too: certification bodies price audits by audit days, and audit days scale with scope. A narrow, well-justified first scope (the customer-facing AI product, say, rather than every internal tool) is usually the right call for a first certification. Stakeholder Interview Planning The checklist needs answers from people who don’t write policies. A typical interview plan covers the executive sponsor (clause 5), the AI or product lead (clauses 6 and 8), data engineering (A.7), procurement or vendor management (A.10), legal or privacy (A.5, A.8), and at least one front-line user of the AI system (A.9). Consultants interview the doers separately from the document owners, because the distance from what the procedure says to what actually happens is the finding. Document Request List (DRL) Consultants Send Clients The DRL goes out one to two weeks before fieldwork. A standard ISO 42001 DRL asks for the AI inventory; existing AI, security, and data policies; org chart with AI governance roles; any AI risk assessments or impact assessments; model documentation (model cards, system cards, or whatever exists); training-data provenance and data quality records; supplier contracts for third-party models; incident and change logs; training records; any ISO 27001 ISMS documentation; and the last internal audit and management review minutes if they exist. Missing items become findings rather than delays. Pro Tip: Return an Honest DRL Return the DRL with a column that says “does not exist” wherever that’s true. Consultants would rather know on day one than discover it in a workshop. An honest DRL shortens fieldwork by days and makes the maturity scores more accurate, which makes the remediation plan cheaper. Clause-by-Clause Checklist Consultants Use (ISO 42001 Clauses 4 to 10) ISO 42001 follows the Harmonized Structure shared with ISO 27001 and ISO 9001, so clauses 4 to 10 will look familiar to anyone who has run an ISMS. What’s different is the content each clause demands. Clause 4 – Context of the Organization Checkpoints Consultants check for a documented analysis of

Scigeniq, a UAE life sciences software vendor, completed SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 in one three-month engagement with Axipro and Vamu.

ISO/IEC 42001:2023 asks for three assessments, and most teams try to squeeze them into one spreadsheet: a gap analysis against clauses 4 to 10 and Annex A, an AI risk assessment under clause 6.1.2, and an AI system impact assessment under clause 6.1.4. Treat them as one exercise and the auditor pulls them apart for you at Stage 2. Treat them as three unrelated projects and you triple the workshops, the registers, and the remediation lists. What works is a single methodology with distinct outputs that share inputs, share a traceability matrix, and feed one remediation plan. This article lays out that methodology end to end: how gap analysis and risk assessment fit together under ISO 42001, how to prepare, the step-by-step process for each, how to merge the outputs into one risk treatment plan, the registers and templates you’ll need, and what a certification body expects to see when you’re done. Why Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Must Work Together Under ISO 42001 A gap analysis measures distance from the standard. A risk assessment measures exposure from your AI systems. They answer different questions, and ISO 42001 makes them depend on each other in a way ISO 27001 only implies. Clause 6.1.3 requires you to compare the controls you select through risk treatment against Annex A, and to justify any Annex A control you leave out in the Statement of Applicability (SoA). So your Annex A gap analysis has no defensible baseline until the risk assessment tells you which controls you need. Run the gap analysis on its own, and you end up scoring yourself against all 38 controls, including ones your risk profile never called for. Run the risk assessment on its own, and you pick treatments with no idea what already exists to deliver them. The methodology below interleaves the two. A clause-level gap review sets the scope and evidence base, the risk and impact assessments decide which controls are required, and a control-level gap review then scores only what matters. How AI-specific risks shape the methodology Traditional information security risk works from confidentiality, integrity, and availability. AI risk adds categories that don’t map neatly onto any of those: model drift, bias in training data, outputs nobody can explain, automation bias in the humans doing the reviewing, and dependence on third-party foundation models whose behavior changes without warning. ISO/IEC 23894, the companion guidance on AI risk management, adapts the ISO 31000 cycle (establish context, identify, analyze, evaluate, treat) to these sources rather than inventing a new one. That’s why the methodology here keeps the familiar ISO 31000 shape and changes the inputs, not the process. Regulatory and business drivers for a formal methodology The commercial driver is procurement. Enterprise security questionnaires now ask whether you ran an AI impact assessment, whether a human reviews high-stakes outputs, and which third-party models touch customer data. A documented methodology answers those questions with evidence instead of assurances. The regulatory driver is the EU AI Act, and its timeline moved in July. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, the Digital Omnibus on AI, entered into force on July 27, 2026, and pushed the high-risk obligations for standalone Annex III systems from August 2, 2026 to December 2, 2027. Annex I embedded systems moved to August 2, 2028. The Article 50 transparency obligations still kicked in on August 2, 2026, as originally planned. Article 9 of the AI Act text on EUR-Lex requires a risk management system for high-risk AI that runs continuously across the system lifecycle, which is exactly what an ISO 42001 methodology gives you. Sixteen extra months is time to build it properly, not a reason to shelve it. Core Principles of an ISO 42001 Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Methodology Four principles keep the methodology defensible in front of a certification body. Alignment with clauses 4 to 10 and Annex A. Every finding in the gap register cites a clause or an Annex A control identifier. Auditors work clause by clause, so a gap register organized any other way forces a translation step during the audit that nobody enjoys. Integration with the AI system impact assessment. Clause 6.1.4 is what separates ISO 42001 from every other Annex SL standard. The impact assessment looks outward at individuals, groups, and society. The risk assessment under 6.1.2 looks inward at the organization. The standard wants both as separate documented outputs, and the consequences you find in the impact assessment have to feed back into the risk assessment. So the methodology runs the impact assessment as a scheduled input to risk analysis, not something bolted on the week before the audit. Risk-based thinking applied to the AIMS itself. Clause 6.1.1 also asks you to consider risks and opportunities to the management system: someone leaving the AI governance function, a vendor retiring a model, a regulator changing its classification rules. These go in the same register with a different category tag. Defined inputs, outputs, and success criteria. Inputs are the AI system inventory, the scope statement, existing policies, data flow diagrams, model documentation, and your risk criteria. Outputs are the gap register, the AI risk register, impact assessment reports, the SoA, and the risk treatment plan. Success means each output traces to the others, every gap and risk has an owner, and an internal auditor could repeat the process and land somewhere similar. Insider Note: Impact assessments are where certification auditors probe hardest, because they’re the most distinctive part of ISO 42001 compared with ISO 27001. A recycled security risk register with “AI” pasted into the risk titles gets picked apart in Stage 2. Build the impact assessment methodology properly the first time. It’s far cheaper than rebuilding it under a nonconformity deadline. Preparing for the Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Preparation is where most of the calendar time goes, and where most later problems start. Define scope, boundaries, and the AI system inventory. Scope under clause 4.3 has to name which AI systems, business units, and lifecycle stages the AIMS covers. You can’t write