What is GRC engineering?

It turns applicable governance, risk and compliance requirements into repeatable technical checks, traceable evidence and structured reporting. This engineering-supported consulting engagement goes beyond policy writing, selecting a platform or installing a GRC tool.

Does every 20x class use the same KSIs and reports?

No. We confirm the selected class and path, current rules, applicable KSIs and reporting obligations at kickoff. The Class C reference is not treated as a universal requirement set for every class.

Can automated checks establish certification?

No. Provider-generated checks support claims but are not independent assessment. A simple pass/fail result does not satisfy an entire KSI in isolation. Independent assessors evaluate the supported claims, and government decisions remain separate.

Do we need a particular GRC platform?

No. The engagement is tool-neutral and can work with agreed existing systems. Collector, query, script or CI/CD integration support is scoped separately using least privilege. We do not claim a turnkey ControlSolid platform or connectors for every cloud.

Is fedramp-advisor.json our evidence report?

No. It describes ControlSolid's advisory services using the advisory service information schema. It is not a customer KSI validation or evidence report. Customer evidence is not published through that endpoint.

Federal cloud readiness

FedRAMP 20x Readiness & GRC Engineering

ControlSolid helps cloud service providers and SaaS engineering and security teams prepare a federal offering. GRC engineering turns applicable compliance requirements into repeatable technical checks, traceable evidence and clear reporting, with implementation support where agreed.

We confirm the selected class, path and current requirements at kickoff. FedRAMP 20x has progressed beyond its initial pilot; applicability and reporting expectations still depend on the selected scope and class.

Evidence you can review

From requirements to verifiable evidence

Turn agreed security requirements into checks and clear records, so your team can see what is supported and what needs attention.

Security requirement
Technical check
Evidence
Review-ready record

A check must be sufficient for the security outcome and work accurately in your environment: those are separate questions.

What a review-ready record looks like

Illustrative example, not client results

A human-readable Security Decision Record (SDR)-style sample, not an official report or schema-conformant artifact.

Security outcome: Agreed security checks cover the version being released.
Check: Review the release checks, their coverage and whether they ran correctly against that version.
Evidence: Look for test records, timestamps and a link to the released version.
Finding / next action: If a check has no evidence tied to the release, record the gap and assign an engineering owner to investigate and collect the missing evidence.

ControlSolid provides scoped advisory and engineering support; independent assessment and government decisions remain separate.

How evidence and reporting work →

Who it's for

Cloud service providers defining a federal offering and its system boundary
SaaS engineering and security teams mapping current 20x requirements to verifiable implementation
Teams that need repeatable evidence workflows and an independent-assessor handoff

Scoped deliverables

System boundary, asset and service inventory, inherited/shared responsibility and applicable-rule mapping
A clear mapping from each applicable requirement or Key Security Indicator (KSI) to its checks, evidence, review and owner
Evidence collector, query, script or CI/CD integration design and implementation support where agreed, using least privilege
Evidence quality, timestamps, provenance, coverage gaps, exceptions and remediation tracking, with manual review where automation cannot substantiate an outcome
Transformation and validation of agreed machine-readable reporting artifacts against current applicable official schemas, with version/change tracking and independent-assessor handoff

Production integrations and access require a separately agreed scope and least privilege.

Benefits

Connect engineering work to supported security claims
Expose evidence gaps and exceptions before independent review
Keep changing rules, schemas and implementation versions traceable

Typical outputs

Scoped applicability and responsibility record
Requirement-to-evidence traceability matrix
Agreed integration support and evidence-quality findings
Schema validation results, substantive verification observations and assessor handoff

Process

Four steps from scope to action

01
Define the scope
Confirm the class, path, current rules, system boundary, stakeholders and agreed engineering support.
02
Assess the environment
Map applicable requirements to implementation, evidence sources, verification methods and ownership.
03
Prioritize the findings
Review evidence quality, coverage gaps and exceptions; prioritize remediation and scoped integrations.
04
Deliver the action plan
Deliver traceability, agreed reporting artifacts, schema validation results and an independent-assessor handoff.

Engagement boundaries

What is outside scope

Separate services and decisions

Independent assessment conclusions and government certification or ATO decisions
Turnkey software, all-cloud connectors or unscoped production access
Public customer-evidence endpoints or government application submission
Third-party assessor, platform, agency and remediation costs unless separately agreed

FAQ

Questions we hear most

Related services