Use cases / Compliance
Walk into the audit with the proof and the reasons
An audit asks for months of evidence and the reason behind every control. Korium holds the framework's own text, each control's evidence as it happens, and the decisions behind it, so being ready is a question you ask, not a month you lose.
We are going through SOC 2 and HIPAA this way ourselves. The criteria are loaded in Korium, every gap is checked against what our systems actually do, and every drill is saved with the date and time it ran.
What goes wrong today
Proof you cannot go back for
16 of the 23 kinds of evidence on our own list only count from the day you start keeping them.
Tickets drift from the truth
Our September review found tickets and an earlier gap assessment that the code itself contradicted.
Advice that is not in the criteria
We were told every change needs a second approver. The actual SOC 2 criteria do not say that.
Every review starts from zero
A new consultant, a new spreadsheet, and the same questions asked again.
Before the window opens
Check every gap against the real criteria
The first thing Korium asks is what the criterion actually says and what proof we already hold. Each gap gets an owner and a start date before the clock starts.
While the window runs
Every drill and review lands with a date and a reason
Proof goes into Korium the day it happens. The auditor samples a record, not a scramble, and the next review starts from this one.
Ask Korium
The questions an audit asks
| THE QUESTION YOU ASK | WHAT KORIUM ANSWERS FROM |
|---|---|
| "What does CC8.1 actually require for change approval?" | The criterion's own text and points of focus, not a summary of it. |
| "Which evidence can't we rebuild if we start late?" | The gap list, marked by what can and cannot be rebuilt. |
| "When did we last prove an alert reaches a person?" | The drill on record, with its date, time and result. |
| "Why don't we require a second approver on every change?" | The decision, its reason, and the criterion it rests on. |
| "Which vendors are due for a review?" | The vendor list, with each one's tier and last review date. |
| "What did the last HIPAA review find?" | Its findings, each checked against the systems, and what changed since. |
Example
The criterion, the decision and the correction, in one answer
The answer quotes the criterion, not a blog post about it, and shows when the team's own understanding changed. Your auditor still makes the call.
Change approval, SOC 2 CC8.1
What the criterion says
Changes are approved before they go live, and splitting duties is considered. CC5.1 allows other controls where splitting duties is impractical.
How we do it
Documented other controls, plus approval records an auditor can sample. Decided September 15, after reading the criteria.
Watch out
The second-approver rule came from vendor guidance, not the criteria. The old note is kept, marked replaced.
The criteria say what. The memory says why.
01 The real text
Answers cite the criterion
Not someone's summary of it, and not last year's spreadsheet.
02 Proof over time
A cycle, not a policy on a shelf
Auditors look for testing, review and correction, each with a date.
03 We are doing it too
SOC 2 and HIPAA, on this loop
Kyroco is working toward both with the same records this page describes.