Regulated incident trail
DORA, SOC 2 Type II, and internal audit ask for closure evidence — not just a resolved ticket. CADS records structured decisions, readiness checks, and deliberate exceptions beside your ITSM, without replacing your GRC stack.
What reviewers ask that tickets rarely answer
Regulators and internal auditors want to know what you believed during the incident, what evidence supported closure, and who approved deviations from your own checklist. A status field in ServiceNow or Jira is rarely enough on its own.
CADS is a standalone web application beside your ITSM. Incidents and tasks stay in Jira or ServiceNow; CADS holds workspace closure policy (Guardrail or Enforced), closure evaluation, soft exceptions, and an audit-ready export. Integrations use webhooks and a machine-to-machine closure API — not an in-ticket plugin.
- What was the root cause and corrective action — and where is the reasoning, not only the outcome?
- Were closure expectations met, or was something waived? Who recorded that variance and when?
- Can you show how understanding evolved during the event instead of a sanitized summary written later?
Why ITSM status and GRC process are not the full story
Your ITSM and GRC platforms excel at workflow, controls, and process history. They were not designed to hold the operational decision chain responders used while the incident was live.
What CADS puts in the trail
On each case, CADS links the artifacts reviewers expect — without asking teams to file a separate audit document after the fact.
- Closure readiness — Workspace policy defines what must be true before close. Responders see readiness on the case instead of inferring from ticket comments.
- Decision timeline — Structured decisions with evidence and append-only history — how understanding changed from first signal to final close.
- Closure review log — When someone closes outside the default checklist, the soft exception is recorded: who, when, and why — in one deliberate place.
- Audit export — Team plans include export for leadership and compliance review (see Pricing for pilot and annual options).
Beside ITSM and GRC — not a replacement
| Layer | Typical home | CADS role |
|---|---|---|
| Tickets & routing | ServiceNow, Jira Service Management | Cases stay linked; tickets remain system of record |
| Controls & risk register | GRC / compliance platform | Operational closure trail complements control evidence |
| Operational closure | Often tribal or post-hoc | Shared bar, enforcement posture, exception log |
Enforcement that matches regulated maturity
Regulated teams still need responders to move fast. CADS supports progressive enforcement so you can start with visibility and tighten posture when leadership and audit are aligned.
- Guardrail surfaces closure readiness and expectations with lighter blocking while teams adopt the bar.
- Enforced prevents closing until required items are satisfied — or a documented soft exception is on the record.
- Workspace policy makes the posture explicit per severity instead of inconsistent team-by-team practice.
Frequently asked questions
What is a regulated incident trail in CADS?
It is the durable record on each case: closure readiness against workspace policy, structured decisions with timelines, and documented soft exceptions when someone closed outside the default checklist — exportable for audit and leadership review.
Does CADS replace our GRC or compliance platform?
No. CADS sits beside your ITSM and complements GRC workflows. It governs operational incident closure and preserves the decision trail engineers used during the event — it does not replace enterprise risk registers or control frameworks.
What can auditors see when a case closed with a variance?
The closure review log shows who recorded the exception, when, and why — alongside decision history and readiness items that were still open. That is deliberate evidence, not a silent status change.
Audit-ready closure beside your ITSM