Coordinate evidence requests, review status, findings and remediation actions in one controlled workflow, with clear ownership and closure tracking.
Evidence request routing
Review lifecycle
Evidence to findings
Evidence is often spread across business teams, technology owners, suppliers and shared repositories. A controlled workflow makes it easier to see what was requested, who owns it, whether it has been reviewed and what action is still open.
Evidence requests with owner and due date.
Secure upload and evidence categorisation.
Review status: received, incomplete, rejected or accepted.
Comments and clarification history.
Links between evidence, findings and corrective actions.
Expiry and refresh dates where relevant.
Keep approved evidence with practical metadata so teams can reuse the right record without losing ownership, review history or validity information. Reviewers can still identify stale, replaced or incomplete evidence before relying on it again.
Evidence type and control mapping.
Legal entity or business-unit ownership.
Review date, reviewer and approval status.
Validity, expiry and refresh tracking.
Version and replacement history.
Convert each gap into an owned action with priority, target date, dependencies and the evidence required for closure. This keeps remediation work visible after the initial review.
Management views can highlight overdue actions, high-priority items and work waiting for review, while detailed records retain the context needed for closure. For related third-party data and reporting workflows, see our DORA Register of Information support .
Action owner and accountable executive.
Priority, severity and target date.
Milestones, dependencies and status updates.
Escalation and reminder rules.
Closure evidence and management reporting.
Illustrative DORA evidence and remediation workspace. Figures shown are sample data for demonstration purposes.
Requests
Uploads
Reviews
Findings
Actions
Closure
Evidence requests
Items in review
Actions awaiting closure
Information security policy
Received
Supplier due diligence pack
Incomplete
Access review record
Accepted
Incident response procedure
Needs update
Some findings can be closed through policy or governance changes, while others need technical work across access, backup, monitoring, resilience or supplier management.
The same action and evidence layer can be used by compliance teams, technology owners and external providers while specialist delivery is scoped separately where required.
Where external providers contribute evidence or own remediation actions, see our
DORA third-party ICT risk assessment.
ICT policy and procedure updates.
Asset and dependency documentation.
Backup and recovery improvements.
Identity and access remediation.
Incident and third-party action evidence.
The first engagement can be deliberately narrow: one assessment, one entity or a selected set of higher-priority controls. That gives the team a practical workflow to test before deciding whether to extend the scope.
One assessment
One entity
Selected high-priority controls
Yes. A governed evidence record can be referenced by more than one relevant assessment or control while keeping one source record and review history.
Yes. Reviewers can mark an item as incomplete or unsuitable, add comments and request clarification or a replacement.
Where the agreed access model allows it, evidence requests or remediation actions can be assigned to outsourced ICT providers or other approved contributors.
Not necessarily. It can be used as a focused DORA workflow alongside existing governance, risk, procurement or ticketing processes.
The configured workflow can support management reporting and data exports according to the agreed implementation.
Share your current gap analysis, evidence spreadsheet or open-action register. We can map the owners, review stages and remediation flow needed for a controlled implementation.
Your Business Growth Awaits