/ 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

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.