What SA-5 system documentation asks for when a vendor cannot supply it
SA-5 requires an organization to obtain or develop administrator and user documentation that covers secure configuration, installation, operation and use of security and privacy functions, to record its attempts to obtain documentation that is unavailable or nonexistent, and to distribute that documentation to defined roles. When an assessor or FedRAMP reviewer asks for proof that administrators and users can configure security functions correctly, the first task is an inventory: list every system component that performs a security or privacy function, then find what the vendor, the open-source project and your own team have written about configuring it. The risk is concrete. An administrator who does not know which settings are secure will leave logging, authentication or encryption at defaults that do not meet your requirements, and no one will notice until an incident or an assessment.
This control is hard in practice for three reasons. Documentation is scattered across vendor portals, release notes, wiki pages, ticket comments and the heads of a few engineers. Vendor material is often outdated for the version you actually run. And nobody owns currency, so a runbook written at deployment stays unchanged through several upgrades. Assign a named owner for each security-relevant component and tie documentation updates to change control, so that a configuration change cannot close without a documentation change where one is needed. SA-5 is assigned to the low, moderate and high SP 800-53B baselines, and all five of its enhancements are withdrawn in Release 5.2.0, so the base control carries the full requirement. Confirm the current SP 800-53 release and your baseline selection with the authorizing official or your assessor before you scope the work.
When the vendor cannot supply adequate documentation, the record of that gap is itself evidence. Write down which document was requested, from whom, when, and what came back, then decide how to fill the gap: write internal guides from observed configuration, test the settings on a staging copy, and have the administrators who will operate the system review them. Keep the request log and the internal guides under version control so an assessor can see both the attempt and the result. Ask your assessor which format of attempt record they expect before the assessment, because requirements for this evidence vary between organizations and between FedRAMP and non-FedRAMP programs.
Which systems, teams and suppliers SA-5 covers
SA-5 reaches further than a single manual. Its scope depends on the baseline selected for the system, whether the system is a FedRAMP cloud service, and which security or privacy functions people operate. The cards below cover the decisions that change the work and the artifacts that SA-5 shares with other controls.
Baseline selection sets the obligation
Under SP 800-53B, SA-5 is selected in the low, moderate and high baselines, so every system in scope for these baselines needs administrator and user documentation. The baseline is set by the system's impact level, which the organization determines in its security categorization. Confirm the selected baseline and any tailoring decisions in the system security and privacy plan before scoping documentation work, because tailoring can change which enhancements and parameters apply.
FedRAMP Rev5 Class B, C and D
Where a cloud service is hosted for federal use, FedRAMP's Rev5 baselines require SA-5 at Classes B, C and D. Each class carries its own documentation expectations, so the authorization class should be confirmed with the sponsoring agency or assessor before the documentation inventory is built. FedRAMP guidance directs providers to its Secure Configuration Guide rules, which should be read alongside the control.
Systems with security or privacy functions
SA-5 applies most directly where a system includes security or privacy functions that administrators or users operate, such as authentication, logging, encryption settings or consent handling. Each such function needs guidance covering secure configuration, installation, operation and use. Inventory these functions first, because a system without them still needs documentation, but the content and reviewers differ.
Teams that own documentation
Platform engineering usually owns installation and configuration guides, application teams own feature and operator guides, the security team owns secure configuration baselines and privacy function guidance, and the service desk owns user-facing material. Assign a named owner for each document and a single approver, so that SA-5 evidence shows who was responsible for keeping it current.
Third-party products and managed services
Commercial products, managed services and cloud platforms in the system boundary often have vendor documentation that the organization must obtain or, where it is unavailable, record the attempt to obtain it. Build a list of every component with its vendor, version and documentation source. Confirm with each supplier which documents it will provide and under what terms, and cross-check contract terms with SA-4 and SA-9.
Related controls that share artifacts
The Release 5.2.0 catalog lists 19 related controls for SA-5, including CM-4, CM-6, CM-7, CM-8, PL-2, PL-4, PL-8, PS-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-8 and SA-9. Configuration baselines (CM-6), component inventories (CM-8) and system security plans (PL-2) overlap with SA-5 documents, so one maintained artifact can often satisfy several controls. Confirm the overlap with the assessor so that the same document is not maintained in parallel versions.
How an assessor tests SA-5 documentation, step by step
This table walks through how an independent assessor tests SA-5 under SP 800-53A, method by method, and what evidence the organization should have ready. Read each row as a question the assessor will ask and the proof that answers it. The main takeaway is that documentation alone does not pass: the assessor also looks for a record of unavailable vendor documents and proof that the right roles received the guides.
| Test element | What the assessor does | Evidence to supply |
|---|---|---|
| Examine: system documentation | Reads administrator and user guides and checks they cover secure configuration, installation, operation and use of security and privacy functions | Current administrator and user guides, with version dates and the system version each one describes |
| Examine: unavailable documentation records | Checks that attempts to obtain documentation that is missing or nonexistent are recorded | Request log or ticket history showing each vendor or developer request, the date, the response and the follow-up |
| Examine: risk management strategy | Confirms the risk management strategy documentation is consistent with how documentation gaps are accepted or escalated | Risk management strategy document and the approval record for any accepted documentation gap |
| Examine: privacy impact assessment | Checks the privacy impact assessment reflects the documented functions that handle personal information | Current privacy impact assessment and a cross-reference to the guides that describe privacy functions |
| Interview: administrators | Asks how administrators learn secure configuration and installation steps, and what they do when a guide is incomplete | Named administrator roster, training or onboarding records, and the escalation path used for documentation gaps |
| Interview: users | Asks whether users can find the user guide, whether it matches the screens they use, and who to contact with questions | Access list for the user guide location and a sample of user feedback or support tickets about documentation |
| Test: distribution to defined roles | Compares the roles the organization defined for documentation against who actually holds the guides | Distribution list or access permissions per role, with evidence of the last distribution or update notice |
| Common finding: outdated guides | Finds guides that describe an earlier release or configuration than the system in production | Change records showing when guides were last reviewed against the current system baseline |
| Common finding: no record of failed requests | Finds that the organization cannot show it tried to obtain vendor documentation | A documented request procedure and a log of requests, including those that went unanswered |
How to implement SA-5 in six steps
This sequence turns SA-5 from a documentation expectation into a maintained set of records: what each system needs, what exists, what has been filled in, who can read it, and what could not be obtained and why. Each step ends with an artifact an assessor can examine.
Define the required documentation set per system and role
Start by listing, for each system in scope, the administrator and user documentation the organization expects to exist. Administrator material should cover secure configuration, installation and operation of the security and privacy functions, and user material should cover their correct use. Name the owner of each document and the roles that must receive it. The output is a document register that lists each system, document type, role, owner and review point. The step is complete when the register covers every in-scope system and an owner has accepted it. Confirm the scope against the system security and privacy plan.
Inventory existing and vendor-supplied documentation
Collect what already exists, including vendor manuals, release notes, hardening guides, internal runbooks and wiki pages. Compare each item against the register and record its source, version and whether it matches the installed release. Ask vendors in writing which administrator and user documents they supply, and keep their replies. The output is a documentation inventory with a status for each item: present, outdated, vendor-supplied, or missing. The step is complete when every register line has a matching inventory entry or an open gap.
Obtain or develop the documentation gaps
For each missing or outdated item, either obtain it from the vendor or write it internally. Internal writing usually falls to the engineering or platform team that operates the system, with security reviewing the security-function content. Where documentation is developed, record the author, the date and the system version it describes. Open-source wiki platforms such as XWiki can hold this material under version control, which records what changed, when and by whom. The output is a set of approved documents with version history. The step is complete when each gap is either filled or moved to the unavailability log in step five.
Review secure configuration content against security functions
Check that the administrator documentation actually explains how to configure each security and privacy function of the system, such as authentication, logging, encryption and access restrictions. Compare the stated settings with the live configuration. Where a configuration scanner is in use, such as Wazuh Security Configuration Assessment with its YAML policies, use its results to confirm that documented settings are applied. The output is a signed review record that lists each security function, the document section that covers it, the test or scan result, and any discrepancy with its fix. The step is complete when every discrepancy has an owner and a due item in the POA&M or change record.
Set the distribution list and access rights
Map each document in the register to the roles that receive it, then configure access to match. Administrator guides should go to system administrators and operators, and user guides to the defined user population. In wiki or knowledge-base tools such as BookStack, assign roles and set permission overrides at the shelf, book, chapter or page level so that only the intended roles can read or edit each document. Confirm that distribution happened by checking recipient lists or access logs. The output is a distribution record showing each document, the roles and named recipients, the date and the access settings. The step is complete when the record matches the register and access tests pass for at least one user in each role.
Record unavailable documentation and the risk decision
Where a vendor cannot supply required documentation and the organization cannot develop it, record the attempt. Keep dated evidence of each request, the vendor's response, and the reason the item is unavailable or nonexistent. Document the risk decision made by the authorizing official or the designated risk owner, including any compensating measures such as configuration checks or alternative support arrangements. The output is an unavailability log with request evidence, vendor responses and signed risk decisions. The step is complete when every gap from step three has either a closed document or a logged, approved exception. Confirm with the assessor how far the exception needs to be carried into the plan of action and milestones.
Which evidence satisfies SA-5 and how to keep it current
SA-5 is satisfied by documentation you can show, not documentation you intend to write. The cards below cover the artifacts an assessor typically asks for, how each stays current between assessments, and what to confirm with your assessor before you build the register. Your assessor decides the acceptable format, so confirm it early.
Documentation register per system
A register lists every administrator and user guide that applies to each system, with its owner, location, current version and the security functions it covers. Assessors use it to test whether documentation exists for each component in scope, including documentation for security and privacy functions. Update the register whenever a guide is added, retired or replaced, and tie those entries to the change process so new components cannot enter production without a documentation entry. Confirm with your assessor whether they want one register per system boundary or a shared register.
Administrator and user guides with version history
The guides themselves must cover secure configuration, installation, operation and use of the security and privacy functions. Keep each guide under version control with a version number and a date, so an assessor can see which edition was in force during the assessment period. Wiki platforms such as XWiki record what changed, when and by whom, which supports this evidence. Require a guide update as part of any significant change to the security functions it describes.
Review and approval record
Documentation that nobody has reviewed is hard to defend. Record who reviewed each guide, when, what they checked for accuracy against the deployed configuration, and who approved the release. Store approvals with the guide version they cover, so a reviewer can trace an approval to the exact text. Ask your assessor how often they expect reviews and whether your own policy defines that frequency.
Distribution list and role-based access record
SA-5 requires documentation to reach the defined roles. Maintain a record showing which roles receive which guides, and export the access list from the system that hosts them. For example, a BookStack shelf can restrict administrator guides to an operations role while exposing user guides more widely, and role assignments and page-level overrides give you an audit trail of who could read each document. Compare the access list with current role membership at each review.
Unavailable-documentation log with risk decisions
When a vendor or developer cannot supply required documentation, SA-5 expects you to record the attempt. Log each request, the date, the response, the gap it left and the risk decision made by the accountable owner, including any compensating steps. Review open entries on a fixed cadence and close them when the documentation arrives or the component is retired. An empty log is only credible if your requests were actually sent and tracked.
Link to the configuration baseline
Guides describe secure settings, so they should match the configuration baseline the system actually runs. Link each guide to the baseline version it describes and check for drift during configuration reviews. Wazuh Security Configuration Assessment can compare endpoints against policies, and Fleet policies show which devices pass or fail a yes or no check. Use those results to show that documented settings match deployed settings, and record any deviation as a change.
What meeting SA-5 costs in money and effort
This table breaks down the cost components of meeting SA-5 System documentation, showing who is paid, whether each cost is one-time or recurring, what pushes it up and how to keep it down. Use it to structure a written scope and to frame the questions you ask before accepting any quote, since no price or duration is published for this control.
| Cost component | One-time or recurring, and who pays | What drives it up | How to keep it down |
|---|---|---|---|
| Documentation tooling or licenses | Recurring for commercial wiki or document platforms, paid by the organization. Self-hosted open-source wikis such as XWiki or BookStack carry no license fee but still need hosting and administration. | Number of seats, add-on modules for approval workflows, and separate tools kept for each system | Standardize on one self-hosted wiki for all system guides, and confirm license terms of any open-source tool with its vendor before deployment |
| Engineering and writing time for administrator and user guides | One-time for initial guides, recurring for revisions. Paid through internal staff time or an implementation partner under a fixed-scope agreement. | Number of systems and components in scope, complexity of security functions, and whether the guide covers privacy functions | Write guides against a template tied to the secure configuration baseline, and reuse content across systems that share components |
| Gap work when a vendor cannot supply documentation | One-time for each gap, plus recurring tracking. Paid through internal staff or a contractor who writes the missing guidance. | Number of vendors without adequate guides and undocumented configuration options | Ask vendors for documentation during procurement, and record each unavailable item as SA-5 requires |
| Vendor follow-up effort | Recurring, paid through internal procurement and security staff time | Number of vendors, contract renewal cycles and documentation updates after each vendor release | Put documentation delivery and update obligations in contracts at acquisition, so follow-up does not depend on repeated requests |
| Review time from security and operations | Recurring, paid through internal staff time at each documentation review cycle | Documentation age, number of approvers, and frequency of system changes | Assign named owners per guide, set a review trigger on each significant change, and keep approval steps short |
| Evidence upkeep between audits | Recurring, paid through internal staff time. Version history in a wiki or documentation tool reduces the effort of showing what changed and when. | Frequency of changes, distribution list size, and missing version records | Keep guides under version control, distribute them from one location, and log every distribution to defined roles |
| External review or testing support | Optional and one-time per review, paid to an independent reviewer or testing firm. DeployOpen prepares documentation and evidence but does not issue assessment results. | Scope of review, number of guides checked against configured systems, and depth of hands-on verification | Scope the review to a defined sample of guides and systems, and request a written scope before work starts |
| Auditor sampling time | Recurring per assessment cycle, paid to the independent assessor. Effort follows the number of documents and records the assessor samples. | Number of systems selected, missing records of unavailable documentation, and gaps between guides and actual configuration | Maintain an index of guides, owners and dates, so the assessor can sample quickly without extended requests |
Which open-source tools can produce SA-5 evidence
SA-5 evidence is a set of documents plus records of what happened to them: current guides, who received them, and what was done when vendor documentation was missing. The four tools below cover different parts of that evidence, from the documents themselves to the configuration they describe. Confirm each capability against the version you deploy before an assessor relies on it.
Version-controlled documentation with XWiki
XWiki keeps every change to a page under version control, recording what changed, when and by whom, and lets users compare any two versions and roll back. For SA-5, this supports showing that administrator and user guides were current at a given date and that changes were reviewed. Confirm that version history is retained for the document types you use and that your retention settings match the record period your assessor expects. XWiki is licensed under LGPL-2.1-or-later, so review the license terms with your legal team before modifying and redistributing it.
Role-based document access with BookStack
BookStack assigns user abilities through roles, and permissions can be overridden per role at the shelf, book, chapter or page level. This lets you show that administrator guides are readable by operators and that user guides are distributed to the defined user roles, which is what SA-5 asks you to document. Check that your role mapping matches the roles named in your system security plan, and test overrides at page level, since a narrow override can hide a guide from the group that needs it. BookStack is licensed under MIT, which imposes few restrictions on internal use.
Endpoint configuration checks with Wazuh
Wazuh Security Configuration Assessment scans monitored endpoints for misconfigurations using YAML policies. These policies are mostly based on CIS benchmarks, can be extended with custom policies, and check files, directories, registry keys and running processes, with remediation recommendations. Used for SA-5, the scan results can show that the secure configuration described in your guides is in place on real systems. Confirm which policies ship for your operating systems and write custom policies for settings that your documentation requires but the benchmarks do not cover. Wazuh is licensed under GPL-2.0-only, so distributing modified versions carries copyleft obligations.
Pass and fail results with Fleet policies
Fleet policies are yes or no questions asked of devices as osquery queries. The policies page shows which devices in each fleet pass or fail each policy. For SA-5, a policy can check a documented setting, such as whether a secure configuration described in an administrator guide is applied, and the pass and fail history gives an assessor a population-level view. Confirm that the osquery tables you rely on exist on each operating system in your fleet, because a query that returns no rows can look like a pass. Fleet is licensed under MIT.
Who does what: your team, a partner and the auditor
Your organization owns SA-5. The control asks for administrator and user documentation covering secure configuration, installation, operation and use, a record of attempts to obtain documentation that does not exist, and distribution to defined roles. Those obligations sit with the people who run the system, and no partner or auditor can accept them on your behalf. Internal staff also decide which documents count as authoritative for each system.
- Ownership: Name an accountable owner for each document, such as the platform lead for administrator guides and the business owner for user guides.
- Approval: Set who signs off new versions and changes, and record the approval date with the version.
- Register: Keep a register of required documents, their locations, versions and the defined recipient roles.
- Missing documentation: Log every attempt to obtain vendor documentation that is unavailable, with the date, the contact and the outcome.
- Risk decisions: Decide how to handle documentation gaps that cannot be closed, and record the decision in the plan of action and milestones.
Before an assessment, check that every document in the register has a named owner, a current approved version and a record of who received it.
An implementation partner such as DeployOpen can prepare the working environment that SA-5 depends on. That usually includes a documentation structure, the tooling that stores and versions the documents, the distribution setup and an evidence pack that the auditor can trace. The partner does not decide whether the control is satisfied and does not write the assessment result. Those are the auditor's findings.
- Gap review: Compare existing guides against what SA-5 expects and list the missing items for your team to prioritize.
- Documentation structure: Draft templates and a folder or page hierarchy so administrator and user guides follow one pattern.
- Tooling setup: Configure self-hosted tools for versioned storage and role-based access, such as XWiki or BookStack, inside your environment.
- Distribution setup: Map documentation to the defined roles and configure access so the right people can read each guide.
- Evidence pack: Assemble the documents, version history, access settings and missing-documentation records in a form the auditor can examine.
When scoping, ask which items the partner will draft, which your team must approve, and which will be left for the auditor to test.
An independent auditor or assessor applies the SP 800-53A procedures for SA-5. The assessment uses the examine, interview and test methods. Examine work covers system documentation, including administrator and user guides, records of attempts to obtain unavailable documentation, and related risk management documentation. Interview work asks administrators and users whether they have the guides and whether they know how to use them. Test work checks whether the documented configuration matches the live system. The auditor then records a finding for each determination statement.
- Examine: Review the guides, version history, missing-documentation records and distribution evidence.
- Interview: Speak with administrators and users about access to and use of the documentation.
- Test: Compare documented secure configuration steps with the system as it runs.
- Independence line: The auditor writes the conclusion. A partner may explain the evidence but must not draft the auditor's findings or pre-write their results.
- Reporting: Only the auditor or assessor issues the assessment report for the control.
Confirm with the auditor which evidence they expect in advance and how they want the pack delivered, so preparation does not drift into writing their conclusions.
Where SA-5 programs usually fall short and how to close each gap
SA-5 is rarely failed because a document is missing altogether. Assessors more often find guides that skip secure configuration, records that are absent for unavailable vendor documents, or manuals that no longer match the running system. The gaps below share one root: documentation that is not owned, versioned, distributed and checked against the system it describes.
Vendor guides skip secure configuration
Vendor installation guides usually explain how to make a product run, not how to run it securely. SA-5 asks for administrator documentation that covers secure configuration, installation, operation and use of the security and privacy functions. Check each vendor guide against those functions, such as authentication, audit logging and encryption settings, and write a supplemental hardening guide where the vendor is silent. Assessors will look for the gap, so record which settings your organization chose and why.
No record of unavailable documents
When a vendor cannot supply required documentation, SA-5 expects the attempt to be recorded. Many programs simply accept a missing manual without noting who asked, when, and what response came back. Keep a request log for each component that tracks the vendor contact, the date, the documents requested and the outcome. The log becomes the evidence that the gap was pursued rather than overlooked.
Documents describe a different version
A guide written for one release becomes misleading after patches, upgrades or configuration changes. Operators then follow steps that no longer match the running system, and assessors comparing the guide against the live build find the mismatch. Tie each document to a specific software version and change record, and treat a version change as a trigger for review. Version control in a wiki or document system shows what changed, when and by whom.
Guides never reach operators
A complete guide stored in a shared drive that operators never open does not satisfy the distribution expectation in SA-5. The control requires documentation to reach the defined roles, so the question is who received it and when. Map each guide to its audience, such as administrators, operators or end users, and grant access by role. Keep the distribution record with the document so an assessor can trace delivery.
No owner for post-change review
Documentation often falls out of date because no named person is responsible for updating it after a change. The fix is an owner for each guide, a defined trigger such as a change ticket or patch cycle, and a review step in the change process that asks whether the documentation still holds. Evidence includes the change records that reference the review and the dated approvals of revised guides. This ties SA-5 to configuration change control rather than leaving it as a one-time deliverable.
Configuration drift goes unchecked
Even a well-written hardening guide loses value when settings drift from what it describes. SA-5 documentation is only useful if the configured state matches the documented state. Use configuration assessment tooling to test endpoints against the settings your guides specify, and record failed checks with their remediation. Compare the assessment output with the guide during each review so the document and the system stay in agreement.
Questions buyers ask about SA-5 documentation
How much effort does SA-5 system documentation take?
SA-5 is one of the lighter controls to satisfy on paper, but the effort depends on how much documentation already exists and how many components the system contains. The work has three parts: obtaining or writing administrator and user guides that cover secure configuration, installation, operation and use of the security and privacy functions, keeping a record of every attempt to obtain documentation that the vendor cannot supply, and distributing the right guides to the right roles. Effort rises with the number of products, the number of vendors, the number of defined roles and how often the platform changes. No effort figure is supplied for this control, so ask your assessor and your implementation partner to scope it against your own inventory before you commit budget.
How long does it take to get SA-5 ready?
No timeline figure is supplied for SA-5, so treat any duration you hear as something to verify. The main drivers are the size of the component inventory, the number of vendor guides that must be collected or rewritten, whether internal guides already exist and are current, how many roles need distribution rules, and how quickly your team can review drafts. Readiness also depends on the wider program. SA-5 is assessed alongside the other System and Services Acquisition controls and the configuration management controls it relates to, so a documentation gap often surfaces during those reviews. Ask for a written schedule tied to a defined scope.
What does the work need from our team?
SA-5 needs people who know how the system is configured and used, and people who own the records. Expect to involve the system owner, a platform or systems administrator who can confirm secure configuration steps, a security lead who defines the security and privacy functions the documentation must cover, and someone who manages the document repository and distribution list. Procurement or the contract owner is needed to chase vendor documentation and log refusals. Plan for the recurring effort of reviewing guides after each upgrade, not only at the start.
Can one internal team meet SA-5 without outside help?
Yes, a capable internal team can meet SA-5 without outside help, provided it has the time, the access to the systems and a clear definition of which security and privacy functions need documentation. The organization owns the control. Outside help is most useful when the team lacks hands-on administrators for every component, when many vendors must be chased, or when the documentation must be produced quickly for an assessment. An implementation partner can prepare documentation and evidence, but only an independent assessor can test the control and report on it. Ask any partner to state in writing which tasks they perform and which remain yours.
Will an assessor accept vendor documentation for SA-5?
Assessors can accept vendor documentation when it is accurate, current and covers the secure configuration and use of the functions your system relies on. The assessment procedure for SA-5 asks the assessor to examine system documentation, including administrator and user guides, and to examine records of attempts to obtain documentation that is unavailable or nonexistent. Vendor guides rarely match your deployment exactly, so supplement them with internal notes that record your settings, hardening choices and the roles that use each guide. Confirm the acceptance approach with your assessor before the assessment starts.
What should we do when a vendor will not provide a guide?
Record the attempt, then decide how the gap will be closed. SA-5 expects you to obtain or develop the documentation and to record attempts to obtain documentation that is unavailable or does not exist. Keep a dated log that names the component, the vendor contact, the request made and the response. Where no vendor guide is available, write an internal guide from testing and from the product's own configuration interfaces, and have the system owner approve it. Review the risk of running a component without vendor support alongside the unsupported component controls in the SA family, because a missing guide can signal a wider support problem.
Do the SA-5 enhancements still matter now that all five are withdrawn?
The enhancements no longer appear as separate requirements, but the base control still matters and the work they described is still expected. SA-5 has 5 control enhancements in Release 5.2.0, all withdrawn, and the base control keeps its 2 organization-defined parameters. Release 5.2.0 also updated the SA-5 discussion with additional considerations for developer artifacts and documentation, without changing the control requirement. Assessors will still test the base control, and FedRAMP's Rev5 baselines require SA-5 at Classes B, C and D. Check the withdrawal and mapping notes in your own tooling so older evidence labels still resolve.
How DeployOpen prepares SA-5 documentation and evidence
DeployOpen plans, implements and documents self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own infrastructure, so administrator and user documentation for those platforms is written as part of the build. We prepare the documentation and the records of its distribution for your assessor, while your organization owns the control and the independent assessor makes the determination.
How we scope
- Agree in writing which platforms, environments and roles need administrator and user documentation for SA-5.
- Confirm which vendor documentation exists, which is missing and which must be developed internally.
- Define the documentation owner, reviewers and the roles each guide must reach before work starts.
How we build
- Write or adapt administrator guides covering secure configuration, installation and operation of security functions.
- Write user guides for the security and privacy functions people actually use, tied to the platform version deployed.
- Log attempts to obtain unavailable vendor documentation so the record SA-5 asks for exists from day one.
How we hand over
- Deliver guides in the documentation system you choose, with version history and access settings configured for each role.
- Provide a distribution record showing which defined roles received which documents, and when.
- Map each guide and record to the SA-5 assessment objects so your assessor can trace evidence without guesswork.
How we support
- Update guides when platforms are upgraded, reconfigured or when vendor documentation changes.
- Offer ongoing support and continuous testing as a retainer after handover, based on the written scope.
- Confirm with your independent assessor which evidence format and review cycle they expect before final delivery.
