SIG and CAIQ answer different assessment-scope questions

Third Party Current editorial graphic. Source material: Shared Assessments Which SIG Should I Use? scoping guide; analysis and presentation by Third Party Current.

What the source establishes

The official Shared Assessments scoping guide positions SIG Lite for lower-risk third parties, SIG Core for deeper review of medium- to high-risk relationships, and custom SIG for scoping by risk domains, mapping references, control families, and Lite, Core, or Detail levels. ^[1]
The official SIG workflow guide says a scoping template controls question selection and can produce an external third-party questionnaire or an internal subject-matter-expert SIG before responses are consolidated. ^[2]
Cloud Security Alliance says CAIQ is built into CCM v4.1 and uses yes-or-no questions to assess cloud providers against the cloud-focused control framework. ^[3]
CSA distinguishes internal use from customization or commercial use in its licensing description, so artifact use and redistribution terms belong in the selection record. ^[3]

Choose from the relationship and control scope

Use SIG when the review needs a third-party questionnaire scoped to the relationship and its inherent risk. Shared Assessments distinguishes a lower-risk Lite template, a deeper Core template for medium- to high-risk third parties, and custom scoping by risk domain, mapping reference, control family, and detail level. The selection record should name the third party, service, inherent-risk basis, included and excluded topics, respondent, configuration, version, evidence requested, and reviewer. ^[1]

Use CAIQ when the decision is centered on a cloud provider or cloud implementation and needs questions aligned to CSA's Cloud Controls Matrix. CSA describes CCM as a cloud-computing control framework and CAIQ as its provider-assessment question set. A cloud-focused instrument may still need supplements for financial, operational, geographic, concentration, privacy, resilience, or relationship risks that the buyer's scope requires. ^[3]

Freeze the exact artifact and intended respondent

A questionnaire name is not a version or configuration. Preserve the publisher, product, release or file identity, retrieval date, scoped domains or mappings, question depth, intended recipient, selected questions, instructions, modifications, and distribution terms. The Shared Assessments workflow guide separates externally distributed questionnaires from internal SME SIGs and explains that the scoping template controls what each contains. ^[2]

Do not compare question counts from different editions or customized files as if they represented stable coverage. A shorter response can reflect scoping rather than lower risk, and a mapped control can still require evidence. Store the issued questionnaire and completed response separately from later publisher updates so reviewers can reconstruct what the supplier actually answered. CSA's public page separately describes licensing conditions for CCM and CAIQ customization or commercial use. ^{[2] [3]}

Keep answers, evidence, and acceptance separate

For each material answer, retain the question and version, respondent and authority, answer time, covered entity and service, evidence reference, period, reviewer, clarification, exception, and disposition. Yes, no, not applicable, inherited, planned, and unknown are different states. A self-reported answer or STAR submission can accelerate review without proving that a control operated for the buyer’s exact service and period. ^{[2] [4]}

Assessment completion is also separate from risk acceptance. Map the response to relationship requirements, test material evidence, identify gaps, assign remediation or compensating controls, and preserve the authorized residual-risk decision and expiry. If SIG and CAIQ are both used, document which question set owns each requirement and reconcile conflicts instead of averaging duplicate answers. ^{[1] [3]}

Test one cloud service with broader relationship risk

A representative evaluation should scope a cloud service that processes regulated data and supports a critical operation. Configure the candidate SIG and CAIQ artifacts, identify overlapping and unique questions, request evidence for a material control, introduce an inherited-control answer and an unsupported assertion, and show which supplemental review covers the non-cloud relationship risks. Reviewers should reproduce the instrument, version, scope, response, evidence, gap, and final decision. ^{[1] [2] [3]}

The reviewed publisher materials establish the instruments’ stated purpose, structure, scoping mechanics, and public positioning. They do not establish that either instrument is complete for a buyer, that a response is accurate, that mappings are equivalent, that controls operate, or that a relationship is acceptable. Those conclusions require a defined scope, current artifacts, evidence, and accountable review. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}

Limitations and unknowns

The licensed questionnaire files, complete questions, mappings, change logs, and terms were not downloaded or compared question by question.
No supplier response, supporting artifact, control, configured assessment, license entitlement, or risk decision was tested.
Buyer-specific regulatory, contractual, sector, geography, and relationship requirements remain unassessed.

What we will watch next

Third Party Current will watch for later primary-source evidence that changes the maintained company, capability, or standards record. The next useful evidence may include implementation documentation, release details, regulator findings, corrected methods, product packaging, customer-observable workflow, or a subsequent company statement. Until then, the dated source and its stated boundary remain attached to this analysis.