LLMResponse AC.L2-3.1.3.a

Ranking Evidence Types for Information Flow Control Policies

For assessment objective [a] "information flow control policies are defined," I'll rank the evidence types from most to least important based on the assessment objects in the CMMC documentation:

Evidence Type Ranking

1. **Documentation (Highest Priority)**

  - Access control policy documents
  - Information flow control policy documentation
  - System security plan sections on information flow
  - Procedures addressing information flow enforcement
  - List of information flow authorizations

2. **Interview Evidence (Medium Priority)**

  - Statements from system/network administrators
  - Feedback from personnel with information security responsibilities

3. **Technical Testing Evidence (Supporting Priority)**

  - Configuration settings demonstrating policy implementation
  - Screenshots or outputs showing mechanisms supporting the policies

Assessment Approach Prioritization

For obtaining this evidence, I recommend prioritizing the assessment approaches in this order:

1. **Examine (First)**: Begin by examining all documentation since this directly addresses whether policies are defined. The CMMC guide specifically lists policy documents first in the assessment objects.

2. **Interview (Second)**: After reviewing documentation, interview personnel to confirm understanding of policies and fill any gaps in documentation.

3. **Test (Third)**: For policy definition (as opposed to enforcement), testing is less critical but still provides supporting evidence that policies have been operationalized.

This prioritization makes sense because "defined" in this context primarily refers to documented policies. Examination of documentation provides the most direct evidence that information flow control policies have been formally defined, while interviews and testing help verify that these definitions are understood and implemented.