[non-validated] DORA SFS 5 / SF 9: Performance Degradation Detection Evidence
Generated catalog draft. No operational assessment or human approval is claimed.
[non-validated] This question has unresolved selected work.
Question
[non-validated] Has the entity documented evidence confirming detection of performance issues through its monitoring system as specified in the repository topic allocation documentation for SFS 5?
Explanation
[non-validated] Has the entity documented evidence confirming detection of performance degradation scenarios through its monitoring system as specified in the repository topic allocation documentation for SFS 5?
Criterion and evidence
Verification requires repository-documented evidence (e.g., logs or records) confirming detection of performance degradation scenarios during the current operational period, applicable to entities under DORA topic scope 5 where performance monitoring is mandated per Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 Article 10. Missing evidence remains pending.
AI assistance prompt
Develop sixteen bounded yes/no factors for DORA: Monitoring and anomalous activity detection. Detect anomalous activity, performance issues and ICT-related incidents using monitored evidence. Cover detection thresholds, logging, alerting, monitoring responsibilities, escalation triggers and testing of detection capability. SFS 6 owns handling/classification after detection; SFS 7 owns external reporting. DORA article references: 10. Verify entity-role applicability and current primary sources. Missing evidence stays pending; no compliance or assessment is implied.
Clarifications
What qualifies as sufficient evidence for this requirement?
Repository-documented monitoring logs showing timestamped records of performance degradation detection exceeding defined thresholds during the documented operational period, explicitly covering performance scenarios (distinct from anomalous activity or ICT incidents) as specified in keyDescription passage.
References
DORA: Monitoring and anomalous activity detection