Not All Findings Are Created Equal

How to interpret audit, assessment, and testing findings beyond labels—and focus on what actually drives risk

January 7, 2026
2 mins read

What’s on this page

Overview
CTM360’s observation of the trend
Recommendations

Security reports apply targeted terms to gaps, varying by standard and type (audits, assessments, vulnerability reports, penetration test reports), which can obscure true urgency.

Common examples

  • SOC 2 security reports flag "exceptions" for control deviations during the period.
  • ISO 27001 assessments divide "major nonconformities" (systemic) from "minor" (isolated).
  • PCI DSS Reports on Compliance mark requirements met or unmet.
  • Vulnerability reports and penetration test reports grade by severity (critical to low) via exploitability and impact.
  • HIPAA assessments pinpoint safeguard shortfalls.

Core insight: Classifications drive timelines; exposure drives risk. A medium-penetration test report item on credentials may pose a greater threat than a critical documentation gap.

Practical recommendations

  • Assess findings by control objective and protected assets, beyond labels alone.
  • Align with the risk register for business/regulatory impact.
  • Seek assessor intent clarification in closing discussions.
  • Log team severity agreements for departmental consistency.

This ensures effort targets meaningful exposures.