GOV-07: Materiality Determination
Mechanisms exist to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.
Renumbered: Formerly GOV-16 in SCF 2025.4.
Code reused: In SCF 2025.4 and earlier, GOV-07 was Contacts With Groups & Associations. That control is now GOV-16.
Control Question: Does the organization define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material?
General (4)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| AICPA TSC 2017:2022 (used for SOC 2) (source) | CC3.1-POF6 |
| ISO 31000 2018 | 5.4.2 |
| NAIC Insurance Data Security Model Law (MDL-668) | 4.E(2)(b) |
| NIST CSF 2.0 (source) | DE.AE-04 |
US (3)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| USA Federal SEC Cybersecurity Rule 2023 | 17 CFR 229.105(a) 17 CFR 229.105(b) 17 CFR 229.106(a) 17 CFR 229.106(b)(2) 17 CFR 229.106(c)(2) Form 8-K Item 1.05(a) |
| USA Nevada NOGE Reg 5 2024 | 5.260.4 |
| USA New York DFS 23 NYCRR500 2023 Amd 2 | 500.4(b) 500.4(b)(3) 500.4(b)(5) 500.9(b)(1) 500.9(b)(2) |
Americas (1)
| Framework | Mapping Values |
|---|---|
| Americas Canada OSFI Self-Assessment Guidance | 2.9.3 |
Capability Maturity Model
Level 0 — Not Performed
Practices are non-existent, based on the inability to demonstrate an implemented and operational capability. A reasonable person would conclude the control is not being performed.
Level 1 — Performed Informally
SCR-CMM Level 1 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude this control requires a structured process. ▪ At this level of maturity, the "ad hoc" nature of performing a capability informally would indicate the intent of the control is not met due to a lack of consistency and formality.
Level 2 — Planned & Tracked
SCR-CMM Level 2 criteria definitions are not available for this control: ▪ A reasonable person would conclude a well-defined and standardized process is required. ▪ At this level of maturity, the “requirements-driven” nature of performing the control is focused on a localized and/or regionalized implementation, not uniform and consistent across the organization. ▪ Requirements are narrowly scoped for applicability and are primarily derived from compliance obligations (e.g., laws, regulations and contracts).
Level 3 — Well Defined
Cybersecurity & Data Protection Governance (GOV) capabilities are standardized across the entity for applicability to People, Processes, Technologies, Data and/or Facilities (PPTDF) to ensure consistency for Technology Assets, Applications, Services and/or Data (TAASD). Capability criteria associated with this control reasonably expect the following criteria to exist: ▪ Policies and standards associated with GOV domain capabilities are formally documented and centrally-managed by the entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function. ▪ Standardized Operating Procedures (SOP) associated with GOV domain capabilities are well-documented and kept current by process owners. ▪ The entity's Governance, Risk & Compliance (GRC) team, or similar function, is appropriately staffed and supported to implement and maintain GOV domain capabilities to address Minimum Compliance Requirements (MCR) (e.g., applicable statutory, regulatory and/or contractual requirements) and Discretionary Security Requirements (DSR) (e.g., entity-required controls). ▪ Technology is leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of governance, risk management and compliance operations (e.g., GRC platform). ▪ An implemented and operational capability exists to define materiality threshold criteria capable of designating an incident as material.
Level 4 — Quantitatively Controlled
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 4 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a quantitatively-controlled process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ While it may be possible to develop “metrics-driven” capabilities for this control, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Level 5 — Continuously Improving
Utilize SCR-CMM Level 3 or Level 4 (if available) criteria definitions: ▪ There are no defined Level 5 criteria, since it is reasonable to assume a continuously-improving process is not necessary to operationalize this control. ▪ Level 5 capabilities should be considered “world-class” where the control builds on Level 4 capabilities, but are continuously improving through Artificial Intelligence (AI) and/or Machine Learning (ML) technologies. ▪ While it may be possible to develop responsive capabilities for this control through the use of AI and/or ML technologies, the criteria would be organization-specific to define.
Assessment Objectives
- GOV-07_A01 organization-specific criteria to define a materiality threshold capable of designating an incident as material are documented.
Evidence Requirements
- E-GOV-15 Materiality Threshold Definition
-
Documented evidence of criteria to define the organization's materiality threshold.
Security, Compliance & Resilience Governance - E-RSK-10 Material Risk Definition
-
Documented evidence of criteria necessary to designate a risk as a material risk.
Risk Management
Technology Recommendations
Micro/Small
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Simple materiality threshold definition (document what constitutes a material incident)
Small
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Documented materiality criteria aligned to business impact and applicable regulations
Medium
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Documented materiality thresholds (financial, reputational, operational, regulatory)
- SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules considered (if applicable)
Large
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Formal materiality determination process aligned to SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules (if public)
- Cross-functional materiality review team (Legal, Finance, CISO, Operations)
Enterprise
- SCF Secure, Compliant & Resilient (SCR) Risk Management Model (SCR-RMM) (https://securecontrolsframework.com/risk-management-model)
- Enterprise materiality determination framework (SEC Item 1.05, PCAOB, SOX alignment)
- Board-approved materiality thresholds with regular review cycle
- Automated materiality scoring integrated with incident response workflows