Practitioner-driven standards for SOC 2 report reliability
A community creating standardized evaluation criteria to help GRC and TPRM practitioners assess how much weight to give a SOC 2 report when making vendor trust decisions.
Practical tools for evaluating SOC 2 report quality
A practical framework with 11 standardized signals to assess report quality across Structure, Substance, and Source.
Eight practical approaches for addressing report quality concerns with vendors and stakeholders.
Vote on and contribute to initiatives that improve the SOC 2 ecosystem for everyone.
Our framework evaluates reports across three critical dimensions
A practical framework that helps GRC and TPRM practitioners assess how much weight to give a SOC 2 report when making vendor trust decisions. The rubric provides standardized signals to identify reports that demonstrate audit rigor versus those that warrant additional scrutiny.
Report reliability as evidence — not whether a vendor's controls meet your specific needs. This rubric helps you assess the quality of the audit work itself.
SOC 2 reports vary widely in quality, but practitioners lack a shared way to assess that variability. Without standardized criteria, teams either treat all reports as equally credible, apply inconsistent subjective judgments, or waste time investigating every report from scratch. The result is unnecessary uncertainty for practitioners, inconsistent feedback for vendors, and an ecosystem that struggles to differentiate quality work.
The rubric evaluates reports across three dimensions — Structure, Substance, and Source. Structure failures indicate the report may not meet professional standards. Substance failures mean the documented work doesn't support the conclusions. Source failures suggest factors that undermine independence or credibility. Only by evaluating all three together can practitioners determine whether a report provides reliable assurance or merely creates the appearance of compliance.
Does the report include required components and maintain professional consistency?
Do the controls, testing, and conclusions logically align and support each other?
What credentials, independence factors, and track record may affect report credibility?
Eight practical approaches for addressing report quality concerns
Approach vendors with curiosity and clarity, not blame. Many well-meaning vendors operating strong security programs may not understand what a high-quality SOC 2 report means, or were guided into a low-rigor audit by cost or sales pressure. Use this as an opportunity to enhance the relationship and grow their understanding.
Don't silently downgrade trust. If material concerns are identified, explain what you're seeing and why it matters. Clear, specific feedback helps vendors improve and strengthens trust across the ecosystem. Frame it as: "This year we can do a manual review since the report wasn't of acceptable quality — we'll need to see specific changes in the next report to accept it."
Business owners, risk owners, and technical stakeholders need to be involved from the start. These teams are most impacted by delayed approvals, compensating controls, and risk acceptance — and often have critical context that informs the final decision.
Not all vendors carry the same risk. Consider data sensitivity, access level, deployment model, and business criticality. A low-impact vendor may warrant lighter scrutiny than a mission-critical system.
If the report isn't sufficient, consider alternatives before rejection. Request supplemental evidence for key controls, limit production access or scope of deployment, or delay rollout until improvements are made. Even partial approval or constrained adoption can create strong incentives to improve audit quality in future cycles. This approach also reaffirms a GRC team as a business enabler that makes risk-based decisions rather than the Team of No.
When a SOC 2 report cannot be reasonably relied upon, additional assurance work may be necessary. The cost of supplemental reviews, evidence requests, or ongoing monitoring can be addressed through contract terms, negotiations, or security addenda. This may include requiring a higher-quality auditor in future cycles, mandating specific controls or audit procedures, or pricing in the additional cost of oversight. Your ACV and TCV as a client will significantly impact your ability to negotiate favorable terms.
The audit community gets very little feedback from report consumers. Constructive engagement with specific concerns can improve future audits — not just for one vendor, but for the broader ecosystem.
Whether risk is mitigated, transferred, or accepted, document the rationale. This is ultimately a risk-based exercise, and documentation supports your own governance obligations and business needs.
Vote on and contribute to initiatives that improve the SOC 2 ecosystem
The SOC 2 Quality Guild is a practitioner-driven community creating standardized evaluation criteria for SOC 2 audit report quality. We exist because practitioners deserve shared, objective ways to assess the reliability of the trust signals they depend on every day.
SOC 2 has become the most widely adopted security assurance framework for SaaS companies. But rapid growth in demand has created a quality gap — reports vary dramatically in rigor, and the ecosystem lacks standardized ways to tell the difference. TPRM teams are left making decisions based on vibes, anecdotal experience, or brand recognition rather than observable, verifiable signals. By giving practitioners the tools to consistently evaluate report quality, we can create market pressure that improves outcomes for everyone — vendors, auditors, and the organizations that rely on their work.
We focus on education, not accusations. Our frameworks evaluate the reliability of reports as evidence — not the trustworthiness of individual vendors or auditors. We provide repeatable, verifiable signals that any practitioner can apply, regardless of experience level.
The Guild is open to GRC practitioners, TPRM professionals, auditors, and anyone who cares about improving the quality of security assurance.
This work is licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. © 2026 SOC 2 Quality Guild.