[non-validated] DORA SFS F / SF 9: Critical provider notification duty (Article 33)
Generated catalog draft. No operational assessment or human approval is claimed.
[non-validated] This question has unresolved selected work.
Question
[non-validated] Has the designated critical ICT provider notified competent authorities without undue delay of significant changes affecting operational resilience as required by DORA Article 33?
Explanation
[non-validated] This requirement assesses whether a designated critical ICT provider (distinct from financial entities or ordinary ICT providers) has submitted documented evidence of timely notifications to competent authorities regarding significant operational resilience changes as mandated by DORA Article 33 per repository text. Evidence must demonstrate notifications within required timeframe; absence yields negative finding while missing evidence remains pending. Repository text not legally verified.
Criterion and evidence
Verifies Article 33 implementation per repository template for designated critical ICT providers regarding notification obligations after significant operational changes. Evidence period aligns with repository template description (31-44, 46-56) without external verification claims. Preserves distinct scope from SFs addressing supervisory cooperation (F0-F2), third-party oversight (F4), findings documentation (F5), and resilience testing (F6).
AI assistance prompt
Develop sixteen bounded yes/no factors for DORA: Critical provider oversight and supervisory readiness. Prepare the assessed entity for applicable critical-provider oversight and supervisory cooperation. Distinguish financial-entity duties from duties of designated critical ICT providers and powers of ESAs/competent authorities. Cover designation implications, supervisory requests, access/inspection cooperation, oversight findings, remediation and records. Never score an authority power as an operational duty of an ordinary provider or financial entity. DORA article references: 31-44, 46-56. Verify entity-role applicability and current primary sources. Missing evidence stays pending; no compliance or assessment is implied.
Clarifications
What constitutes sufficient evidence for compliance?
Documented proof of notifications submitted to competent authorities within required timeframe after identifying significant operational changes per repository text. Retains original topic boundaries (31-44, 46-56) without legal verification or currency claims.
Are alternatives permitted under this requirement?
No valid alternatives exist per Article 33's mandatory notification requirement as stated in repository text. Explicitly no acceptable substitutes without external verification.
References
DORA: Critical provider oversight and supervisory readiness