Automate GRC evidence collection from the systems that enforce your controls
Stop collecting the same evidence by hand every audit cycle.
DigitalXForce reads control evidence from the source systems, stores each result with a timestamp and maps it once to every framework that needs it. Your auditors then work from the history of each control.
DigitalXForce was named a Leader in the IDC MarketScape: Worldwide Governance, Risk, and Compliance Software Vendor Assessment, 2025 (Doc #US53615325, June 2025).
When audit preparation means asking control owners for the same screenshots and exports every cycle, a GRC team spends its specialists on collection. This page is for GRC, compliance and internal audit leaders at mid-size and large organizations, and for the CISO they answer to. They want each piece of evidence collected once and kept current.
DigitalXForce reads evidence from the system that enforces each control through 250+ technology integrations and records the time it was read. Each control is mapped once to every framework requirement it satisfies across 50+ compliance frameworks, so one piece of evidence serves all of them. Continuous Control Monitoring (CCM) monitors conditions, evidence and signals associated with controls. Continuous Control Assurance (CCA) uses evidence, monitoring and validation to determine whether controls continue to operate as expected, and CCM is a capability within CCA. Between audits, the platform keeps the record up to date on its own schedule.
If this is your environment
Evidence collection has taken over the program when several of these sound familiar.
- Control owners send screenshots by email, and each screenshot is current only for the day it was taken.
- Exports from a source system are already out of date when the auditor opens them.
- Several teams ask one control owner for the same artifact, and the request returns every audit.
- The same evidence is filed again for each framework.
- Audit preparation takes the time of the specialists who should be working on risk.
What manual evidence collection costs between audits
Manual collection takes time from both sides. Specialists chase artifacts, and control owners produce them, often for an auditor who asked for the same thing last year. When requests arrive framework by framework, the work repeats for each one.
The larger cost is what a collected file cannot show. A screenshot describes the day it was captured, and it says nothing about the week after. A control that fails between audits goes unnoticed until someone asks for the evidence again.
An assurance gap is the time, or the set of controls, for which an organization has no current evidence that a control still operates as expected. Manual collection widens that gap, and when the board asks whether controls work today, the best answer a manual program has describes the last audit.
Evidence collection, Continuous Control Monitoring and Continuous Control Assurance are three different things
Teams often use these three terms as if they named one job, but they name three.
Evidence collection shows that a control existed when the file was gathered. Continuous Control Monitoring keeps reading the evidence afterward. Continuous Control Assurance decides whether the control still works today.
A program can automate the first step and still have no answer to the third. DigitalXForce runs all three on one platform, and the third step is the one auditors and boards ask about.
What good evidence collection looks like
In a good operating model, nobody collects by hand the evidence that a system already holds. Evidence is read from the source system with the time it was read. It is mapped once to every framework requirement it satisfies, and each control is tested at a frequency set by how fast its evidence can change. The dashboards show how old every piece of evidence is, and stale evidence never counts as a pass.
People still have a role, mainly for controls that no system records. Some controls leave no machine-readable trace, such as a board’s review of risk appetite or a signed contract clause. For those, the control owner answers questions and attaches evidence, and the control carries a review date instead of a test frequency.
Automated GRC replaces spreadsheet governance, risk and compliance with a platform that tests controls, maps them to frameworks and reports status without manual evidence collection. That definition covers the controls a connected system enforces. The assessment route described below covers the rest.
How DigitalXForce automates evidence collection, step by step
DigitalXForce is the AI-native Enterprise Trust, Risk, Security and Compliance Management (TRiSCM™) platform unifying automated GRC and security posture management. TRiSCM, or Trust, Risk, Security and Compliance Management, is a category of enterprise software defined by DigitalXForce that converges automated governance, risk and compliance with security posture management into a single real-time system, replacing periodic control validation with continuous control assurance.
For evidence, the workflow runs in eight steps.
| Step | Stage | What DigitalXForce does |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Source system or API | The platform reads from the systems that enforce controls through APIs, using credentials that stay under the customer’s control. It is agentless. Evidence arrives through 250+ technology integrations in two adapter families: X-Connect for security tools and E-Connect for enterprise systems. |
| 2 | Timestamped evidence | Each test result is stored with the evidence it read and a timestamp. Each input can be traced to the tool it came from, the control it belongs to and the date it was read. |
| 3 | Control mapping | Each control is mapped once to every framework requirement it satisfies across 50+ compliance frameworks, so one piece of evidence is reused across frameworks. Policy analysis results publish to the security controls each policy governs. |
| 4 | Validation | Each control is tested at its own frequency. The test records that the control operates as expected, that it does not, or that the evidence is missing or too old to decide. |
| 5 | Finding | A gap becomes a finding with an owner and a due date. If the organization accepts the gap, a named person records the decision with a reason and an expiry date. |
| 6 | Remediation | The control owner fixes the gap. Remediation tickets can go to ServiceNow and Jira when the client wants that. |
| 7 | Retest | The control is tested again when the fix is marked done, and the finding closes only when the retest passes. |
| 8 | Audit-ready record | Every result, exception, decision and retest is kept with its evidence and timestamp. Auditors can see the history of a control instead of a sample, and the auditor decides whether to rely on it. |
Which evidence can be automated
Evidence can be automated wherever a connector or data source reads it. The example on the Continuous Control Monitoring page reads multifactor authentication (MFA) status daily, log retention and SIEM feed health hourly, backup verification daily and policy acknowledgment monthly. Coverage for a given control depends on the connector for the system that enforces it, and the walkthrough checks that against the systems you name. Connected systems include, as examples, AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud for cloud configuration, and ServiceNow and Jira for tickets.
The best first candidates are controls that a system enforces, that change often and that appear in most frameworks. Multifactor authentication, privileged access, logging, encryption, backups and vulnerability remediation are typical examples.
Controls with no machine-readable trace
For controls that no system records, DigitalXForce uses three assessment modalities: C-Assess for compliance, X-Assess for security and A-Assess for audit. The control owner answers questions and attaches evidence, AI JedAI reads the documents, and a reviewer approves the result. AI JedAI is the DigitalXForce AI engine that analyzes: it reasons over control evidence and live telemetry, maps documents to controls and frameworks, scores and prioritizes risk, and recommends remediation mapped to framework requirements. An analyst reviews AI conclusions before anyone relies on them, with a link back to the evidence used.
What each capability changes for the GRC team and for executives
| Buyer problem | DigitalXForce capability | Operational result | Executive result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control owners send screenshots by email. | Evidence read from the source system through 250+ technology integrations | Control owners are asked less often for artifacts a system already holds. | Specialists can spend their time on risk work. |
| Exports go stale before the auditor opens them. | Each result stored with the evidence it read and a timestamp, with evidence age on the dashboards | Stale or missing evidence shows as stale or missing. | A reported pass rests on current evidence. |
| The same evidence is filed for each framework. | Each control mapped once across 50+ compliance frameworks | One piece of evidence is reused across frameworks. | Audit preparation draws on one record per control. |
| Exceptions live in email threads. | A named person records each accepted gap with a reason and an expiry date | Every exception has an owner and an end date. | Leaders can see which risks were accepted, by whom and until when. |
| The auditor asks for a sample. | A kept history of every result, exception, decision and retest | The auditor reviews the control history. | Fieldwork starts from a record that already exists. |
The proof behind automated evidence collection
The IDC recognition in the hero is listed, with its document number, on the IDC research page.
DigitalXForce reads evidence through 250+ technology integrations and maps each control once across 50+ compliance frameworks. The frameworks page shows the most requested frameworks, and the full list is available on request. The 15 modules of the platform share one data layer. A failed control result therefore reaches the compliance view, the posture view and the risk register at the same time.
DigitalXForce does not perform audits. Auditors use the platform, and DigitalXForce makes its clients ready for their audits. DigitalXForce prepares organizations for SOC 2 and can review SOC 2 reports with automation and AI, and it does not issue them.
Why manual collection, scheduled uploads and workflow tools leave a gap
Each approach helps in some way, and each leaves a different gap.
Manual collection still suits controls that depend on judgment. For a control that a system enforces, a screenshot is a copy of a record the system already keeps, and the copy starts aging the moment it is saved.
Scheduled uploads cut the chasing, since the file arrives on its own. The file is still a snapshot of one moment. The Continuous Control Monitoring page compares point-in-time evidence, scheduled uploads and continuous monitoring side by side.
Workflow-only GRC keeps requests, approvals and tickets in order. The control status inside it is whatever a person entered, and nothing in the workflow reads the evidence from the source system.
Periodic audit stays necessary for external audit, certification and internal audit. Continuous Control Assurance gives the auditor a fuller record, and the auditor still forms the audit opinion.
What happens after you ask to see automated evidence collection
The demo is a 30 minute walkthrough on your own frameworks and systems. DigitalXForce builds it around the ones you name in the form and replies to every request within 1 business day.
Your existing policies, evidence and assessments import into the platform and become the baseline. You then stop duplicate evidence requests one audit cycle at a time, starting with the controls a system enforces. Controls that depend on judgment stay on a review cycle.
The standard proof of value runs for 4 weeks on your own systems and frameworks, with success criteria set with you. Connectors are configured in week 1. The attack surface and External Risk View are set up in week 2. The first assessments run in week 3, and DigitalXForce reviews them with you in week 4. You keep your existing systems unless you decide otherwise.
Inside the program, control owners fix what fails and internal audit reviews independently. A person reviews failed tests daily, and one person keeps the connections healthy.
The full DigitalXForce platform runs in the client’s own hosting, so the client keeps full control of its data, which is the model DigitalXForce prefers. DigitalXForce Lite is the full DigitalXForce platform hosted in the cloud, with the same functionality, for any organization that prefers cloud hosting. Pricing depends on modules, environment size and deployment scope.
Questions buyers ask about automated GRC evidence collection
Can it reuse evidence across frameworks?
Evidence is reused across frameworks. Each control is mapped once to every framework requirement it satisfies across 50+ compliance frameworks, so a control tested once serves every framework mapped to it.
What happens when evidence changes?
Each control has its own test frequency, set by how fast its evidence can change. The next read records the new state with a timestamp. If the control no longer operates as expected, the test opens a finding with an owner and a due date. Stale or missing evidence is recorded as stale or missing and never counted as a pass.
Can auditors see the history of a control?
Auditors can see the history of a control instead of a sample. Every result, exception, decision and retest is kept with its evidence and timestamp, and the auditor decides whether to rely on it. DigitalXForce does not perform audits. Auditors use the platform, and DigitalXForce makes its clients ready for their audits.
How are exceptions handled?
A gap becomes a finding with an owner and a due date. If the organization accepts the gap, a named person records the decision with a reason and an expiry date. The decision is kept with the control history, so the auditor sees it beside the evidence.
Does it integrate with existing ticketing and workflow tools?
Remediation tickets can go to ServiceNow and Jira when the client wants that. The platform reads evidence through 250+ technology integrations from the tools the organization already runs. When the fix is marked done, the control is tested again, and the finding closes only when the retest passes.
Will automation remove all manual evidence work?
Automation covers the evidence a connector or data source can read. Controls with no machine-readable trace, such as a board’s review of risk appetite, run through an assessment where the control owner answers questions and attaches evidence and a reviewer approves the result. Those controls carry a review date instead of a test frequency.
Collect each piece of evidence once
The evidence your next audit will ask for already sits in your systems. A 30 minute walkthrough shows how DigitalXForce would read it from the systems you name and map it once across your frameworks. Your auditors would then get a timestamped record of every control.
