[non-validated] DORA SFS B / SF 9: Documented Test Team Separation
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 maintained documented separation between operational resilience test design and execution teams throughout the review period?
Explanation
[non-validated] Does the designated digital service provider maintain documented separation between operational resilience test design and execution teams during the review period?
Criterion and evidence
Verifies evidence of distinct reporting lines and no role overlap between test design and execution teams for designated digital service providers during the review period. Evidence requires organizational charts or role assignments covering the full evidence period.
AI assistance prompt
Develop sixteen bounded yes/no factors for DORA: Digital operational resilience testing programme. Maintain a risk-based testing programme, findings register and verified remediation. Cover test planning, independence, relevant systems/functions, suitable test types, remediation and closure evidence. Distinguish ordinary testing requirements from the conditional advanced TLPT regime in SFS C. DORA article references: 24, 25. Verify entity-role applicability and current primary sources. Missing evidence stays pending; no compliance or assessment is implied.
Clarifications
What constitutes valid evidence of test team separation?
Documented organizational charts or role assignments showing separate reporting lines for design and execution teams with no shared members during the entire review period.
How does this differ from the TLPT regime?
This requirement applies to the basic operational resilience testing program under repository topic boundaries; it excludes the advanced TLPT regime covered in SFS C.
References
DORA: Digital operational resilience testing programme