Peer Review and Approval for SOC 2

What this control should accomplish

Production-bound code and configuration receive an independent technical review and authorized approval before release.

How to implement Peer Review and Approval

1. 1

   Set review boundaries

   List the repositories, configuration stores, infrastructure code, detection rules, and workflow definitions that can affect production.

   You should end up with: Production-change repository and asset scope

2. 2

   Configure independent approval

   Require a reviewer other than the author and define which roles may approve sensitive or high-risk changes.

   You should end up with: Branch and approval rule configuration

3. 3

   Preserve review context

   Keep review comments, resolved findings, approval identity, commit hash, and any renewed approval after material edits.

   You should end up with: Review record tied to the released revision

4. 4

   Monitor bypasses

   Review merges, direct pushes, override events, and emergency paths for exceptions to the standard workflow.

   You should end up with: Bypass and exception review log

Evidence to keep, and what it should prove

Build the evidence set in three layers: what defines the control, who approved or reviewed it, and what proves it operated. Collect operating records when the work happens so they remain dated, attributable, correctly scoped, and traceable to the underlying activity.

Before sharing, remove unrelated personal or customer data, never expose passwords, tokens, or secret values, preserve enough source context to authenticate the record, and use the secure exchange approved for the engagement.

Which records should you prepare for the audit?

How an auditor may test this control

Use this checklist to prepare for procedures an auditor may perform. The exact steps and sample selection depend on your engagement scope and the service auditor's professional judgment.

• Confirm the intended control outcome

  Determine whether the control is designed to achieve this result: Production-bound code and configuration receive an independent technical review and authorized approval before release.

• Confirm ownership and operating cadence

  Compare the documented owner with the intended role (Head of Engineering / Platform Owner), then compare dated records with the stated cadence: Per change.

• Establish the complete audit record set

  Begin with deployment history, map each revision back to a reviewed pull request and ticket, and reconcile unmatched revisions against direct-push, override, and emergency audit events.

• Prepare the as-of-date evidence for a Type 1 engagement

  Retain branch and approval rules plus one recent deployed revision showing independent review and authorized approval were effective on the selected date.

• Prepare period evidence for a Type 2 engagement

  List every production deployment during the period, resolve each deployed commit to its pull request and approval history, and include direct pushes, administrator overrides, emergency merges, failed releases, and approval invalidations after later commits.

• Inspect the approval / review evidence

  Records showing that an accountable person reviewed, approved, challenged, or accepted the work.

  • Inspect Pull request approvals

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates An authorized reviewer approved the exact production-bound revision before it was merged or released.

    • Pull-request ID
    • Reviewed commit
    • Reviewer identity
    • Approval time
    • Merge time
    • Branch

  • Inspect code reviews

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates A qualified peer examined the change and recorded comments, resolutions, or a clear approval decision.

    • Review ID
    • Reviewer
    • Files or revision reviewed
    • Review comments
    • Resolution status
    • Decision time

  • Inspect infrastructure/security approvals

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates Sensitive infrastructure or security changes received review from the designated technical authority before release.

    • Change ID
    • Affected resource
    • Risk or security impact
    • Authorized approver
    • Decision
    • Decision time

  • Inspect change approvals

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The production change had an authorized go or no-go decision covering its scope and planned release.

    • Ticket ID
    • Change scope
    • Approver
    • Approval status
    • Approval time
    • Conditions or exception

• Trace the control from design to operation

  Use the categories that apply to this control: connect any policy or design artifact to its approval or review record, then trace a selected operating record through execution, result, and any exception or remediation.

Common implementation and evidence gaps

• The author can approve or merge a change without independent review.
• Approval applies to an older commit and is not renewed after material edits.
• Infrastructure and production configuration changes bypass source-control review.
• Administrator overrides are possible but never reviewed.

Before you call this control ready

• Do protected branches reject an unapproved pull request?
• Can approvers be tied to authorized roles and current team membership?
• Does the released commit match the revision that received approval?
• Are override and direct-change events visible and investigated?

Trust Services Criteria references

These identifiers help you navigate related Trust Services Criteria. They do not reproduce the criteria or prove that this control fully addresses them in your environment.

• CC8.1

Confirm final scope, mappings, and testing expectations with your service auditor. SOC 2® is an AICPA trademark; GreenHat Security is not affiliated with or endorsed by AICPA.

Related controls to review next