Stored Processing Data Integrity for SOC 2

What this control should accomplish

Stored inputs, work-in-progress records, and completed outputs remain attributable, internally consistent, and protected from unnoticed alteration, loss, incomplete state, or improper lifecycle activity.

How to implement Stored Processing Data Integrity

1. 1

   Map stored processing data

   Identify where each critical flow keeps source records, intermediate state, outputs, history, archives, and deletion markers.

   You should end up with: Stored processing-data map

2. 2

   Define integrity and lifecycle rules

   Record required constraints, allowed state changes, retention periods, archival behavior, deletion authorization, and recovery expectations.

   You should end up with: Stored-data integrity and lifecycle design

3. 3

   Configure storage protections

   Apply access restrictions, database or object constraints, audit history, encryption, retention, and monitored lifecycle jobs.

   You should end up with: Active storage and retention configuration

4. 4

   Check stored state

   Use record counts, state reconciliation, checksums, constraint results, or representative recovery tests to detect missing or altered data.

   You should end up with: Periodic stored-data integrity result

5. 5

   Resolve storage exceptions

   Route failed archival, deletion, retention, integrity, or recovery activity to an owner and preserve its disposition.

   You should end up with: Traceable storage-exception record

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: Stored inputs, work-in-progress records, and completed outputs remain attributable, internally consistent, and protected from unnoticed alteration, loss, incomplete state, or improper lifecycle activity.

• Confirm ownership and operating cadence

  Compare the documented owner with the intended role (Platform Engineering / Data Owner), then compare dated records with the stated cadence: Continuous; configuration and integrity review at least quarterly.

• Establish the complete audit record set

  Reconcile scheduled integrity and lifecycle activity to execution history, then reconcile storage alerts and failed jobs to exception records; confirm the scope includes inputs, intermediate state, and completed outputs.

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

  The current storage and lifecycle design, active configuration, and a recent integrity or state check showing the controls applied to inputs, work-in-progress, and outputs at the review date.

• Prepare period evidence for a Type 2 engagement

  Every scheduled integrity, state-reconciliation, and recovery check; every covered archive, retention, and deletion job; and every storage-integrity or lifecycle exception generated during the period.

• Inspect the policy / design artifacts

  Documents that define the control, its scope, ownership, and expected way of working.

  • Inspect Processing integrity policy or procedure

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The shared process addresses protection and lifecycle handling for stored inputs, intermediate processing state, and outputs.

    • Covered data states
    • Responsible roles
    • Integrity expectations
    • Lifecycle expectations
    • Exception handling

  • Inspect Stored-data integrity and lifecycle design

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The approved design defines required constraints, state transitions, access and history expectations, retention, archival, deletion, and recovery behavior for each stored processing state.

    • Store or data-state type
    • Covered record states
    • Required constraint or integrity rule
    • Allowed state transitions
    • Access and audit expectation
    • Retention or lifecycle rule
    • Design owner and version

• Inspect the approval / review evidence

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

  • Inspect Policy approval and version record

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The storage-integrity and lifecycle requirements were formally approved and effective for the relevant review period.

    • Document name
    • Version
    • Approver
    • Approval date
    • Effective date

• Inspect the operating / technical evidence

  Dated proof that the control actually ran, such as tickets, logs, settings, exports, reports, and test results.

  • Inspect Active storage and retention configuration export

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The live environment implements the designed database or object constraints, state handling, access logging, retention, archival, and deletion settings.

    • Store and environment
    • Covered table, object, or state
    • Active integrity or constraint setting
    • Access and audit setting
    • Active retention or lifecycle rule
    • Export or capture time

  • Inspect Stored-data integrity check results

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates The organization performed a defined check over stored processing data and recorded scope, method, differences, reviewer, and result.

    • Check ID
    • Store and covered scope
    • Method
    • Execution date
    • Expected and actual result
    • Reviewer
    • Difference disposition

  • Inspect Archive, deletion, and storage exception records

    For each selected record, confirm it demonstrates Lifecycle jobs and storage-integrity alerts retain their affected scope, timing, owner, action, and final disposition.

    • Job or exception ID
    • Affected store or records
    • Event time
    • Expected action
    • Observed result
    • Owner
    • Final disposition

• 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 control addresses backups but not the integrity of active or intermediate processing state.
• Stored inputs and outputs are covered while queue, workflow, or temporary state is omitted.
• The approved storage design and active retention or constraint configuration do not match.
• Privileged changes can alter records without attributable history.
• Retention or deletion jobs run automatically but failures are not monitored.
• Screenshots do not identify the store, environment, timestamp, filters, or result.

Before you call this control ready

• Are inputs, work-in-progress records, and completed outputs all included?
• Can the active storage and lifecycle configuration be compared directly with the approved design?
• Can unauthorized or unexpected changes to stored processing data be detected?
• Do lifecycle jobs have execution history and failure monitoring?
• Can one storage exception be traced through investigation and closure?
• Do integrity checks cover the critical states rather than only backup recovery?

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.

• PI1.5

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