SOC 2 Isn’t One‑Size‑Fits‑All—Your Audit Shouldn’t Be Either
Written By: Amanda Libby, ISO 27001 CIS LA
“We don’t do that do we have to?”
As an information security auditor, this is one of the most common reactions I hear from organizations new to SOC 2. Most of the time, my response is simple:
“No. We can usually map what you’re already doing to the SOC 2 criteria.”
Immediate relief.
First-time SOC 2 organizations are often unfamiliar with the framework, so they rely heavily on consultants and auditors to tell them what’s “required.” That’s where things can go wrong.
If an auditor or consultant tells you that you must implement a specific control, especially one that is costly, you should pause and ask a very simple question: ‘Why?’
SOC 2 does not prescribe specific controls. It defines objectives. Any recommendation should be tied to a clearly articulated risk or a specific gap relative to the criteria, not blanket statements about what the framework “requires”.
A good audit begins by understanding how the organization actually operates, then mapping those practices to the framework, not the other way around. Auditors should be asking questions such as:
Who uses your product or service?
What data do you collect?
How does data flow through your systems?
Where and how are your services used?
These questions are asked during interviews and walkthroughs to identify controls that often already exist informally. In many cases, the controls are there; the gap is in formal documentation, which is typically the largest effort for organizations preparing for an audit.
This is where a trusted risk advisor adds real value. A good advisor walks through your processes and environment, helps identify existing controls, and provides practical guidance on how to document them appropriately for audit purposes. They also help identify where controls are missing, weak, or inconsistently applied so they can be strengthened in a way that improves the security program and aligns with best practices.
The focus should always be on material risk, not cosmetic compliance. Risk advisors and organizational leadership should collaborate by combining their understanding of industry specific risks, current threat trends, and business objectives to properly prioritize improvements across low, medium, and high risk areas.
Controls that exist solely to satisfy an auditor rarely survive real-world use. “Auditor designed controls” often fail because they don’t reflect how the organization actually operates, leading to workarounds, missing evidence, and future audit findings. SOC 2 controls should be identified, not prescribed.
As risk advisors, our role is to bridge the gap between frameworks and operations, to translate requirements into practical, sustainable practices that reflect how the organization truly works. When auditors, advisors, and leadership collaborate with that shared understanding, compliance becomes a mechanism for resilience, trust, and long-term scalability, not an obstacle to it.
Strong security programs aren’t built for auditsthey’re built for the business. The audit should simply confirm that.
If your organization is beginning its SOC 2 journey, or questioning whether its current approach truly reflects how the business operates, a second opinion can make all the difference. At Pease Bell CPAs, we serve organizations nationwide as longterm risk advisors, helping them navigate SOC 2 with clarity, confidence, and a focus on scalable, realworld security, not transactional compliance.
