Your SOC 2 audit is three weeks away. You've spent six months implementing controls, collecting evidence, and documenting procedures. You're confident everything is ready. Then the draft report arrives with five findings, and your stomach sinks. Your customer is asking questions. Your board wants explanations. Your team is wondering what went wrong.

Here's the truth most SOC 2 consultants won't tell you upfront: almost every company gets findings on their first audit. The companies that appear to pass with zero findings often worked with their auditor during a pre-assessment that identified and fixed issues before the formal audit began. The question isn't whether you'll get findings, it's which findings you'll get and whether they're significant enough to impact your report's usefulness.

This guide covers the ten most common SOC 2 audit findings based on real audit experience. For each finding, we'll explain why it happens, what auditors are really looking for, how to fix it, and how to avoid it entirely. By understanding these common pitfalls, you can prevent them rather than scrambling to fix them mid-audit.

Quick overview: The most common findings cluster around access management, change control, incident response, and evidence collection. Most stem from gaps between documented procedures and actual practice, incomplete evidence trails, or controls that aren't operating as consistently as required. Prevention is straightforward once you understand what auditors need to see.

New to SOC 2? Start with the basics: What is Compliance? A Business Owner's Guide

Understanding SOC 2 Findings

Before diving into specific findings, understand what findings mean and how auditors categorize them.

Types of Findings

Observations: Minor issues that don't significantly impact control effectiveness. These appear in the report but don't affect the auditor's opinion. Think of these as "you should fix this but it's not critical."

Deficiencies: Control gaps that do impact effectiveness. These affect the auditor's opinion and appear prominently in the report. Customers will notice these and may ask for remediation plans.

Material weaknesses: Significant deficiencies that substantially undermine control objectives. These are rare in well-prepared audits but devastating when they occur. They typically result in a qualified opinion that many customers won't accept.

What constitutes a finding: Auditors issue findings when controls don't operate as designed, evidence is missing or insufficient, or procedures documented in policies aren't actually being followed. The severity depends on the gap's impact on Trust Service Criteria and how long it persisted.

How Findings Impact Your Report

Clean report (no deficiencies): Auditor issues an unqualified opinion stating controls operated effectively. This is what customers want to see and what you're aiming for.

Report with observations: Auditor still issues an unqualified opinion but notes minor improvements needed. Most customers accept these reports, though they'll want to see your remediation plans.

Report with deficiencies: Auditor issues a qualified opinion noting control gaps. Some customers accept these if deficiencies are minor and remediation is clear. Others may require re-audit after remediation.

Report with material weaknesses: Auditor's opinion is significantly qualified or adverse. Most customers won't accept these reports. You'll likely need to remediate and re-audit.

The Goal: Prevention, Not Remediation

The best way to handle findings is to prevent them. Every hour spent on proper implementation saves days on remediation and re-audit. This guide focuses on prevention through understanding what auditors actually test and what commonly goes wrong.

Finding 1: Insufficient Access Reviews

The issue: Companies aren't performing regular, comprehensive access reviews as documented in policies, or reviews are incomplete and don't cover all systems and users.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Access reviews are typically documented as quarterly requirements. Many companies start strong, conducting thorough reviews in the first quarter, then let the practice slip as priorities shift. By the time audit comes, they realize they have gaps in months 4-6 or reviews that only covered some systems.

The finding manifests in several ways: quarterly reviews that actually happened every 5-6 months, reviews that covered only production systems but missed development and staging environments, or review documentation that lacks evidence of follow-up on identified issues.

What Auditors Want to See

Complete scope: Every system with customer data, every administrative account, every privileged access. Not just production - development, staging, and administrative systems too.

Regular cadence: If your policy says quarterly, auditors expect to see reviews in months 3, 6, 9, and 12. Not months 3, 5, 9, and 13. Consistency matters more than perfection.

Documentation trail:

• List of all users and their access levels at review time
• Comparison to authorized access based on roles
• Identification of any unexpected or unnecessary access
• Approval or removal of identified access
• Evidence that removals were actually completed
• Sign-off by appropriate managers

Follow-through: Finding that a terminated employee still has access is fine if you immediately revoke it and document the correction. Finding the same issue three months later shows the review process isn't effective.

How to Fix It

If you haven't been doing reviews: Start immediately. Even if you can't go back and recreate missing reviews, beginning now shows commitment. Document when regular reviews started and maintain them consistently going forward.

If reviews are incomplete: Expand scope to cover all systems. Create a comprehensive system inventory and verify each system is included in reviews.

If reviews lack documentation: Implement a standardized review template that captures all required elements: who has access, what they should have, discrepancies found, actions taken, and approvals.

How to Prevent It

Automate access inventory: Use identity management systems or scripts to generate current access lists automatically. Manual access audits are painful and error-prone.

Calendar automation: Set recurring calendar events with reminders starting two weeks before each quarterly review is due.

Assign clear ownership: Designate a specific person responsible for ensuring access reviews happen. Without ownership, reviews fall through cracks.

Template and process: Create a standardized access review template and process. Consistency in documentation proves the control operates effectively.

Our Document Bundle includes access review templates and procedures that make this process systematic and auditable.

Finding 2: Incomplete Change Management Documentation

The issue: Changes to production systems aren't following documented change management procedures, or change documentation is incomplete or missing for some deployments.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Development teams move fast. The documented change management process requires tickets, testing documentation, approvals, and deployment verification. In reality, emergency fixes sometimes skip the process, or developers forget to create tickets for minor changes.

The finding typically appears as: production changes with no corresponding change tickets, change tickets created retroactively after deployment, missing testing documentation or approval signatures, or emergency changes that bypassed the process without being documented as exceptions.

What Auditors Want to See

Complete change inventory: Every deployment to production should have corresponding change documentation. Auditors often compare deployment logs to change tickets to find discrepancies.

Required elements per change:

• Change request with description of what's changing
• Risk assessment and rollback plan
• Testing documentation and results
• Required approvals before deployment
• Deployment verification and sign-off
• Post-deployment validation

Emergency change procedures: Your process should document how emergency changes work - who can approve, what documentation is required after the fact, and how emergencies are defined. Following your documented emergency process is fine. Not having one or ignoring it is a finding.

Evidence trail: Auditors need to trace changes from request through deployment. Gaps in the trail suggest the process isn't consistently followed.

How to Fix It

If changes lack documentation: Go through deployment logs and create change tickets retroactively for any missing changes. Note in the ticket that it's a retroactive documentation improvement. This doesn't fully fix the finding but demonstrates you're addressing gaps.

If documentation is incomplete: Update your change ticket template to include all required fields. Review existing tickets and add missing information where possible.

If process isn't being followed: Meet with development team to understand why. Often, the process is too burdensome for the reality of your deployment frequency. Adjust the process to be realistic while maintaining control requirements.

How to Prevent It

Integrate with deployment tools: Link change tickets to deployment automation. Some tools can prevent deployment without an associated change ticket.

Simplify the process: Complex change processes get ignored. Make the process as lightweight as possible while still capturing required information.

Automate reminders: When deployments happen without change tickets, automated alerts can prompt immediate documentation.

Template clarity: Provide clear change ticket templates with examples. Ambiguous requirements lead to incomplete documentation.

Finding 3: Missing or Inadequate Security Training Records

The issue: Security awareness training isn't happening as frequently as documented, training completion records are incomplete, or training content doesn't cover required topics.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Companies document annual or quarterly security training requirements in policies but struggle to actually deliver consistent training. New hires might complete initial training, but ongoing training for existing employees often falls behind.

The finding appears as: training that's documented as quarterly but actually happens every 6-8 months, completion records showing 75% completion when policy requires 100%, training content that covers password basics but misses incident response or data handling, or no records of training completion acknowledgment.

What Auditors Want to See

Consistent cadence: If policy says annual training, all employees should have training completion within the last 12 months. If quarterly, all employees should have training from the last quarter.

Complete participation: 100% completion or documented follow-up for the few who haven't completed training yet. "Most people did it" doesn't meet the requirement.

Content coverage: Training must cover topics relevant to SOC 2 controls: security awareness, acceptable use, incident reporting, data handling, physical security, password management, and social engineering awareness.

Acknowledgment records: Evidence that employees actually completed training and acknowledged understanding, not just that training was made available.

New hire training: Documentation that security training is part of onboarding and new employees complete it before accessing systems.

How to Fix It

If training is behind schedule: Conduct immediate catch-up training for all employees who haven't completed required training. Document completion dates and maintain records.

If completion records are incomplete: Recreate records from training platform data if possible. For historical gaps, document when systematic record-keeping began.

If content is inadequate: Update training content to cover all required topics. Document what topics are covered and when content was last updated.

How to Prevent It

Training platform: Use a learning management system (LMS) that tracks completion, sends reminders, and maintains records automatically.

Integration with onboarding: Make security training a required step in employee onboarding that must be completed before system access is granted.

Automated reminders: Platform should automatically remind employees when training is due and escalate to managers for overdue training.

Brief, focused content: Long, boring training videos have low completion rates. Brief, engaging content gets completed more consistently.

Quarterly or annual: Choose a cadence you can actually maintain. Annual training with 100% completion beats quarterly training that only happens twice a year.

Finding 4: Weak Password and Authentication Controls

The issue: Password policies aren't enforced technically, multi-factor authentication isn't required for all administrative access, or authentication controls don't match policy requirements.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Policies often document strong password requirements (12+ characters, complexity, 90-day rotation) and mandatory MFA for administrative access. Reality sometimes differs - systems that can't technically enforce these requirements, legacy applications without MFA support, or administrative accounts that somehow bypassed MFA setup.

The finding manifests as: password policies documented but not enforced by systems, administrative accounts without MFA enrolled, service accounts that can't use MFA but lack compensating controls, or SSO not covering all applications with sensitive data access.

What Auditors Want to See

Technical enforcement: Password requirements should be enforced by systems, not just documented in policies. If policy requires 12 characters, the system should prevent shorter passwords.

Universal MFA: All administrative access, privileged accounts, and access to systems with customer data should require MFA. No exceptions unless documented with compensating controls.

Service account controls: Service accounts that can't use MFA need compensating controls: strong passwords, restricted access, monitoring, and regular rotation.

Configuration evidence: Screenshots or configuration exports showing password policies and MFA requirements are actually configured in systems.

How to Fix It

If password policies aren't enforced: Configure systems to technically enforce password requirements. If some systems can't enforce policies, document these as exceptions with compensating controls.

If MFA isn't universal: Implement MFA for all administrative access. For systems that don't support MFA, implement compensating controls and document the limitation.

If service accounts lack controls: Implement service account password rotation, monitoring, and access restrictions. Document service accounts that require exemptions.

How to Prevent It

Configuration management: Maintain configuration baselines for authentication settings across all systems. Regular reviews verify configurations haven't drifted.

MFA from day one: Require MFA setup as part of account provisioning. Accounts without MFA enrolled shouldn't receive administrative access.

Service account inventory: Maintain a complete inventory of service accounts with documented ownership, purpose, and compensating controls where MFA isn't possible.

Regular audits: Quarterly audits of authentication configurations catch drift before it becomes a finding.

Finding 5: Inadequate Incident Response Documentation

The issue: Incident response procedures exist in policy but haven't been tested, or actual incidents weren't documented according to procedures.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Many companies document comprehensive incident response plans but never test them until a real incident occurs. When incidents happen, the team focuses on resolving the issue quickly and forgets to document it according to the formal procedure.

The finding appears as: incident response plan that's never been tested with a tabletop exercise, real security incidents that weren't logged in the incident tracking system, incident documentation missing required elements like root cause analysis or lessons learned, or incident response procedures that don't align with how incidents are actually handled.

What Auditors Want to See

Testing evidence: Annual tabletop exercises or simulations demonstrating the incident response plan works and team knows their roles.

Real incident documentation: If security incidents occurred during the observation period, comprehensive documentation including: detection and reporting, initial assessment and classification, containment and resolution steps, root cause analysis, remediation actions, and lessons learned.

Completeness: All security events that meet the policy's incident definition should be documented. Missing incidents suggest the process isn't followed consistently.

Improvement cycle: Evidence that lessons learned from incidents or tests led to improvements in procedures or controls.

How to Fix It

If plan hasn't been tested: Conduct a tabletop exercise immediately. Document who participated, what scenario was used, what worked, what didn't, and action items.

If incidents lack documentation: Go back through logs and reconstruct incident timelines for any security events that occurred. Document them retroactively with a note about improving documentation practices.

If documentation is incomplete: Create an incident response template that includes all required elements. Use it for future incidents.

How to Prevent It

Annual testing schedule: Calendar a tabletop exercise annually. Make it a team event focused on learning, not blame.

Incident logging integration: When security alerts trigger, immediately create an incident ticket even if it turns out to be benign. Better to have false alarm documentation than miss logging a real incident.

Post-incident template: Standardized template that guides team through required documentation during and after incidents.

Quarterly review: Review all security events quarterly to ensure anything that should have been logged as an incident was properly documented.

Our Evidence Bundle explains exactly what incident response evidence auditors expect and how to document incidents properly from the start.

Finding 6: Poor Vendor Risk Management

The issue: Third-party vendors with access to systems or data weren't assessed for security, vendor assessments are outdated, or vendor contracts lack required security terms.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Vendor management is often reactive rather than proactive. Companies assess major vendors during SOC 2 preparation but forget about smaller vendors, legacy vendors from before compliance programs existed, or vendors added mid-year without following the documented assessment process.

The finding shows up as: vendors with system access but no security assessment on file, assessments that are 2+ years old when policy requires annual review, vendor contracts missing security or data handling terms, or subprocessors not identified or assessed.

What Auditors Want to See

Complete vendor inventory: All third parties with access to systems, data, or infrastructure. Not just major SaaS vendors - hosting providers, payment processors, support tools, monitoring services, anyone who could potentially access customer data.

Risk assessment for each vendor: Documentation of how you assessed each vendor's security: questionnaires, SOC 2 report review, penetration test results, or other security documentation.

Assessment recency: Assessments should be recent (annually at minimum). Relying on a vendor's SOC 2 report from three years ago doesn't cut it.

Contract terms: Vendor contracts should include security requirements, data handling terms, right to audit, incident notification requirements, and data return/destruction terms.

Approval process: Evidence that vendor assessments happened before granting access, not retroactively after the vendor was already in use.

How to Fix It

If vendor inventory is incomplete: Audit all systems and identify every third party with access. Include SaaS vendors, contractors, consultants, hosting providers, and service providers.

If assessments are missing: Request security questionnaires or SOC 2 reports from all vendors immediately. Document when you can't get adequate security documentation and what compensating controls you've implemented.

If contracts lack security terms: For major vendors, consider contract amendments adding security requirements. For smaller vendors, document in vendor assessment what security terms you negotiated or why amendments weren't possible.

How to Prevent It

Procurement integration: Make security assessment part of procurement workflow. No vendor gets added to systems without security review.

Annual vendor review: Calendar annual reviews of all vendors. Update assessments, verify contracts are current, and reassess risk.

Vendor assessment template: Standardized questionnaire that makes vendor assessment consistent and thorough.

Contract templates: Standard vendor contract terms that include all required security and data handling provisions.

Finding 7: Backup and Recovery Testing Gaps

The issue: Backups are happening regularly but restore testing isn't occurring as frequently as documented, or testing doesn't verify all critical systems and data can be recovered.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Everyone remembers to configure backups. Far fewer companies actually test restores regularly. Testing is disruptive, requires coordination, and takes time. The documented quarterly testing often becomes annual or "we tested once when we set it up."

The finding appears as: backup testing documented as quarterly but actual testing happened once or twice during the observation period, testing that only verified some systems but not all critical systems, test documentation that doesn't prove data was actually recovered successfully, or no evidence of testing RTO (recovery time objective) and RPO (recovery point objective) metrics.

What Auditors Want to See

Regular testing: If policy says quarterly backup testing, auditors expect four tests during the observation period, one per quarter.

Comprehensive scope: Testing should cover all systems identified as critical in your business continuity plan. Not just databases - applications, configurations, file storage, anything needed for recovery.

Success verification: Documentation proving the restore worked: restored data matches production, applications function properly, and recovery met documented RTO/RPO targets.

Remediation: If testing identifies issues (incomplete backups, slow recovery times, corrupted data), documentation of how issues were fixed.

How to Fix It

If testing hasn't happened: Conduct backup restore testing immediately for all critical systems. Document results even if testing finds issues - showing you're testing and fixing is better than no testing.

If testing is incomplete: Expand testing scope to cover all critical systems. Create a testing schedule that rotates through different systems each quarter.

If documentation is inadequate: Use a backup testing template that captures all required elements: what was tested, how, results, any issues, and remediation.

How to Prevent It

Quarterly testing calendar: Schedule backup testing as a recurring quarterly task. Assign ownership so someone is accountable.

Rotation schedule: Test different systems each quarter so all critical systems get tested over a year without requiring massive testing efforts each quarter.

Automation where possible: Automated restore testing to non-production environments reduces manual effort and makes testing more frequent and consistent.

Documented procedure: Clear testing procedures make it easier for team members to execute testing without significant planning each time.

Finding 8: Insufficient System Monitoring and Logging

The issue: Security monitoring isn't comprehensive enough, log retention doesn't meet documented requirements, or alerting on security events isn't configured or being acted upon.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Monitoring and logging requirements sound straightforward in policies but implementation is complex. Companies might have logging enabled but not collecting all required log types, or retention set to 30 days when policy requires 90 days, or alerts configured but not being reviewed regularly.

The finding manifests as: logs missing for some systems or time periods, log retention shorter than policy requirements, security alerts going to unmonitored email addresses or not being investigated, or monitoring gaps for critical security events like failed login attempts, privilege escalation, or unusual data access.

What Auditors Want to See

Comprehensive logging: All systems processing customer data or providing administrative access should have logging enabled: authentication events, access to sensitive data, configuration changes, privilege escalation, security alerts, and system errors.

Centralized collection: Logs from all systems aggregated in a centralized location for analysis and retention.

Retention compliance: Logs retained for the period documented in policy (typically 90 days to 1 year). Auditors may ask for logs from any point in the observation period to verify retention.

Alert configuration: Security events like multiple failed logins, account lockouts, privilege changes, or suspicious access patterns should trigger alerts.

Alert response: Evidence that alerts are being reviewed and investigated, not just collected. Documentation of alert review and any actions taken.

How to Fix It

If logging is incomplete: Enable logging on all systems handling customer data. Configure centralized log collection to prevent logs from being lost.

If retention is insufficient: Adjust log retention settings to meet policy requirements. Document when proper retention began if you can't retroactively recover old logs.

If alerts aren't monitored: Implement a process for reviewing and responding to security alerts. Document who's responsible and how often alerts are reviewed.

How to Prevent It

SIEM or log management platform: Centralized logging platform makes comprehensive logging and retention manageable.

Alert tuning: Configure meaningful alerts that are actually monitored and acted upon. Too many false positive alerts lead to alert fatigue and real events being missed.

Regular review: Weekly or daily review of security alerts with documentation of review and any actions taken.

Automated retention: Configure automated log retention policies so logs aren't manually managed and at risk of deletion.

Finding 9: Incomplete Risk Assessment Process

The issue: Risk assessments aren't being conducted as frequently as documented, risk assessment doesn't cover all required areas, or identified risks don't have documented treatment plans.

Why This Finding Is So Common

Risk assessment is often a one-time effort during SOC 2 preparation but policies document it as an annual or quarterly process. When audit comes, companies realize they did one comprehensive risk assessment initially but haven't updated it since.

The finding appears as: risk assessments documented as annual but only one assessment from 18 months ago exists, risk assessments that don't cover all systems or data types, identified risks without documented treatment plans or acceptance decisions, or no evidence that risk assessment results influence security decisions.

What Auditors Want to See

Regular cadence: Annual risk assessments at minimum, with evidence of assessment completion each year.

Comprehensive scope: Risk assessment covering all systems with customer data, all data types handled, all threats and vulnerabilities relevant to the environment.

Risk treatment: For each identified risk, documentation of how it's being treated: mitigated through controls, accepted with justification, transferred through insurance or contracts, or avoided by not doing the risky activity.

Management approval: Sign-off from appropriate management on the risk assessment and treatment decisions.

Integration with security program: Evidence that risk assessment results actually influence security decisions and control implementation.

How to Fix It

If risk assessment is outdated: Conduct a new risk assessment immediately. Document what changed since the last assessment and how you're addressing new or changed risks.

If scope is incomplete: Expand risk assessment to cover all systems, data types, and threat scenarios. Use a structured framework like NIST or ISO to ensure comprehensive coverage.

If risk treatment is missing: For all identified risks, document how each risk is being handled. Create risk treatment plans with timelines and owners.

How to Prevent It

Annual calendar reminder: Schedule risk assessment as an annual recurring task with sufficient time allocated.

Risk assessment template: Standardized template that ensures consistent, comprehensive assessments each time.

Integration with planning: Use risk assessment results to drive security roadmap and budget decisions, creating natural incentive to keep assessments current.

Quarterly updates: Between annual comprehensive assessments, quarterly reviews can identify new risks from changes in systems, threats, or business operations.

Finding 10: Documentation Not Matching Reality

The issue: Documented procedures in policies don't match how things actually happen in practice, or the team isn't aware of documented procedures and isn't following them.

Why This Finding Is So Common

This is the meta-finding that underlies many other findings. Companies write aspirational policies describing how things should work, then implement something different in practice. Or policies are written by consultants who don't fully understand actual operations. When auditors interview staff and review evidence, the gap between documentation and reality becomes obvious.

The finding shows up as: interviews where staff describe different procedures than what's documented, evidence of processes that don't match documented workflows, policies requiring approvals that aren't actually being obtained, or documented roles and responsibilities that don't reflect actual organizational structure.

What Auditors Want to See

Alignment: Documented procedures should match actual practice. If your change management policy says all changes require director approval but evidence shows manager approval is sufficient, that's a gap.

Awareness: Staff should be familiar with documented procedures that apply to their roles. When interviewed, they should be able to describe processes that align with documentation.

Updates: When processes change, policies should be updated to reflect current reality. Policies shouldn't describe how things used to work or hope to work someday.

Realistic requirements: Procedures should be practical and actually followed. A policy requiring three-level approval for all changes when you deploy multiple times daily isn't realistic and won't be followed consistently.

How to Fix It

If documentation doesn't match practice: You have two options - change practice to match documentation (if documentation represents better control), or update documentation to match actual practice (if actual practice is adequate but different from what's written).

If staff isn't aware of procedures: Conduct training on documented procedures. Update procedures if they're unclear or impractical, contributing to lack of awareness.

If procedures aren't realistic: Revise procedures to be practical while still meeting control objectives. Better to document realistic procedures that are followed than perfect procedures that are ignored.

How to Prevent It

Document reality, not aspiration: Write procedures that describe how things actually work, not how you wish they worked. If you want to improve a process, implement the improvement first, then document it.

Staff involvement: Include people who actually do the work in policy development. They'll catch unrealistic requirements and ensure documentation matches practice.

Regular review: Quarterly policy reviews with staff who follow procedures catch drift between documentation and practice early.

Training and communication: When policies are updated, communicate changes and train staff. Policies sitting on a SharePoint drive that nobody reads don't influence behavior.

Prevention: Building Audit-Ready Controls

The best way to handle findings is to prevent them in the first place.

Start with Realistic Policies

Document what you can actually do: Better to have straightforward policies you follow consistently than sophisticated policies you ignore. Quarterly access reviews you complete beat monthly reviews you skip.

Involve the team: People who will follow procedures should help write them. They know what's realistic and what isn't.

Regular updates: When processes change, update policies immediately. Don't let documentation drift from reality.

Implement Controls Properly

Test before launch: Before starting your observation period, test every control. Run a practice access review, test your incident response plan, conduct a backup restore test. Fix issues before evidence collection begins.

Automate evidence collection: Manual evidence collection is error-prone and burdensome. Automate everything possible: log collection, training completion tracking, access reviews, backup verification.

Build in accountability: Assign clear ownership for each control. Someone needs to be responsible for ensuring access reviews happen, backups are tested, and vendor assessments are completed.

Maintain Consistency

Calendar everything: Recurring calendar events for quarterly and annual activities prevent things from falling through cracks.

Checklists and templates: Standardized templates ensure complete documentation every time.

Quarterly self-audits: Review your own evidence quarterly as if you were the auditor. Catch gaps when they're easy to fix.

Address issues immediately: When you discover a gap or mistake, fix it right away and document the correction. Don't wait until audit to address issues you already know about.

Preparation Pays Off

Companies that prepare thoroughly get fewer findings. The preparation isn't glamorous - it's templates, checklists, automated reminders, and systematic evidence organization. But it works.

Week before audit: If you've been maintaining controls consistently and organizing evidence along the way, the week before audit is just final verification and organization. If you've been scrambling, this week is stressful chaos.

During audit: Well-prepared companies respond to evidence requests quickly because everything is organized and accessible. Poorly prepared companies spend days finding documents and reconstructing evidence.

After audit: Clean audits result from consistent operation and thorough evidence. Findings result from gaps, inconsistency, or incomplete documentation.

When Findings Happen Anyway

Even well-prepared companies sometimes get findings. Here's how to handle them.

Don't Panic

Findings are normal: Almost all first-time audits have some findings. Even repeat audits often have minor observations. Findings don't mean failure.

Focus on remediation: Auditors care more about how you respond to findings than the fact that findings occurred. Strong remediation plans and quick corrective action matter.

Learn and improve: Use findings as opportunities to strengthen your security program. Often, findings identify real weaknesses that needed fixing anyway.

Response Strategy

Acknowledge issues: Don't argue with findings unless they're genuinely inaccurate. If the finding is legitimate, acknowledge it and move forward.

Provide context: Management response should explain what happened, why, and what you're doing about it. Context helps customers understand the finding's significance.

Show improvement: Demonstrate that you've already started addressing the finding. Completed remediation is much better than a plan to remediate "eventually."

Prevent recurrence: Explain what you're changing to prevent the same finding from occurring in future audits.

Using Findings for Improvement

Pattern analysis: If you get multiple findings in one area (like access management), that area needs systemic improvement, not just point fixes.

Process improvements: Findings often indicate process gaps. Use them to identify where automation, templates, or better procedures would help.

Training needs: Findings can reveal where team training or awareness needs strengthening.

Your Finding Prevention Action Plan

Here's your practical checklist for avoiding common findings.

Before Observation Period

• ✓ Write realistic policies that match actual capabilities
• ✓ Test every control before starting observation period
• ✓ Set up automated evidence collection
• ✓ Create templates for manual evidence
• ✓ Assign clear ownership for each control
• ✓ Calendar all quarterly and annual activities
• ✓ Train team on procedures and documentation requirements

During Observation Period

• ✓ Follow documented procedures consistently
• ✓ Organize evidence weekly, not at audit time
• ✓ Conduct quarterly self-reviews
• ✓ Address gaps immediately when discovered
• ✓ Update policies when processes change
• ✓ Maintain complete documentation for all controls

Before Audit

• ✓ Conduct internal readiness assessment
• ✓ Review all evidence for completeness
• ✓ Identify and fix any gaps proactively
• ✓ Organize evidence clearly for auditor
• ✓ Brief team on audit process and interviews
• ✓ Prepare responses to anticipated questions

The Bottom Line on Findings

SOC 2 audit findings are preventable through proper implementation, consistent operation, and thorough documentation. The companies that get clean audits aren't lucky - they're prepared. They started with realistic policies, implemented controls properly, maintained consistency throughout the observation period, and organized evidence systematically.

The work isn't glamorous. It's templates and checklists and calendar reminders and weekly evidence organization. But it works. An hour spent on proper implementation saves days on remediation. A week spent on thorough preparation saves months on re-audit.

Understanding common findings gives you the roadmap for prevention. Now you know what auditors test, what they expect to see, and where most companies fail. Use this knowledge to build controls that pass audit the first time.

Ready to implement controls correctly from the start? Our Complete Bundle includes policies, document templates, and evidence explanations that address every common finding area - giving you the foundation for a clean audit.

Need help with specific control areas? Our Policy Bundle ensures your documented procedures are audit-ready, our Document Bundle provides templates that make evidence collection systematic, and our Evidence Bundle explains exactly what auditors expect to see for each control.