Taxonomy

DRAFT - Please review and provide feedback. Self-register via Login to leave comments.

CR26-KSI_Taxonomy.png

We defined the following DRAFT KSI Taxonomy to align with CR26 terminology and Security Decision Record (SDR) schema fields. We expanded on this where necessary; expansions and departures from FedRAMP's literal language are noted at the bottom of this section.

Taxonomy elements are named in the singular; a KSI's Design may reference more than one instance of any element (e.g., multiple Data Sources reconciled by a single Data Analysis rubric).

The taxonomy of a KSI includes:


Notes

[^ksi]: FedRAMP's defined term for the requirement itself is "Key Security Indicator," a type of FedRAMP Practice (FRD-FPR).

[^ksi-1]: SDR-CSX-KSI, item 1: "Explanation of measures (and their objectives) that demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or an explanation of the reason and resulting risk to customers for not having measures available for that Key Security Indicator."

[^ksi-2]: SDR-CSX-KSI, item 2: "Explanation of the cycle for any measures that are implemented persistently (if applicable)."

[^n-cycle]: Expansion. FedRAMP's rule text describes Cycle only in terms of a recurring frequency ("implemented persistently"); it does not distinguish frequency-based from trigger-based collection. We extend Cycle to cover both, since a triggering condition is, in our view, still an answer to "when is data collected," and FRD-PER (Persistently) already allows persistent activity to "occur irregularly" with "waiting periods between cycles" — a reading consistent with trigger-based collection, though not stated as such.

[^ksi-3]: SDR-CSX-KSI, item 3: "Verification that the measures demonstrate the Key Security Indicator, or that the reason for not having them is accepted."

[^ksi-4]: SDR-CSX-KSI, item 4: "Verification that the automation in place is accurate and sufficient to demonstrate appropriate measures for the Key Security Indicator, or that automation is not necessary for each measure."

[^n-mechanism]: Departure. SDR-CSX-KSI item 4 refers to "the automation in place," implying an automated mechanism. We do not require Collection Mechanism or Analysis Mechanism to be automated, since item 4 itself allows "automation is not necessary" as a valid answer — a mechanism can be a manual, human-performed process.

[^ksi-5]: SDR-CSX-KSI, item 5: "Validation that the measures are accurately produced and are in place and working as intended, or that the reason for not having them is valid."

[^n-determination]: Departure. FedRAMP's own term "Finding" (used in FRD-SDR and IVV-IAS-SUM) refers to the independent assessor's output, not the CSP's own automated conclusion. We use "Automated Determination" to avoid conflating the two. The assessor's own Finding, per IVV-IAS-SUM, is out of scope for this taxonomy, which models only the CSP's measurement chain under SDR-CSX-KSI.

[^kmt]: SDR-CSX-KMT requires historical metric data, scaled by Certification Class: a 30-day and up-to-one-year summary of each metric at Class B; the same plus all daily metric data up to one year at Class C; requirements exceeding Class B/C at Class D (specifics pending the 20x Phase 4 Pilot).

[^dtm]: FRD-DTM (Deterministic Telemetry): "Verifiable data collected directly from an authoritative source that represents a factual and reproducible observation of the attributes of a system." Its note states that probabilistic inferences, generative outputs, or predictive assessments "must not be used to generate deterministic telemetry" — consistent with this taxonomy's treatment of Agentic AI involvement as Inferential-tier under Measurement Basis.

[^vrf]: FRD-VRF (Verification): "Confirmation through objective evidence that specified FedRAMP Practices have been fulfilled for a cloud service offering."

[^vln]: FRD-VLN (Validation): "Confirmation through objective evidence that implemented security capabilities and related certification data are suitable for their intended FedRAMP Certification use and support the expected security outcomes for a cloud service offering."

[^n-confirmation]: Departure. We group Verification and Validation under "Confirmation" rather than FedRAMP's own term "assurance," since FedRAMP uses "assurance" for Certification Class and Type (FRD-CCL, FRD-CTY), a different concept. "Confirmation" is drawn from the shared opening language of FRD-VRF and FRD-VLN themselves. All three Confirmation elements are performed by the CSP, not an independent assessor — none of SDR-CSX-KSI's five items use the word "independent," unlike the base FRR layer (SDR-CSO-FRR) and Rev5 controls (SDR-CSF-CTF), which both explicitly require independent verification and validation as separate items.

[^mgn]: FRD-MGN (Machine-Generated): "Automatically produced by a computer process, application, or other mechanism without the intervention or manipulation of a human during production." This anchors the Automation category in Agent Basis; by exclusion, human involvement is the case FRD-MGN does not cover.



Revision #10
Created 2026-09-21 12:23:10 UTC by Brian Ruf
Updated 2026-09-29 14:13:40 UTC by Brian Ruf