CAIQ v4.1 vs SIG 2026: Standard Security Questionnaires Still Need Different Evidence Maps
Published August 2026 by Solarc Labs
CAIQ and SIG standardize different assessment jobs
CSA released CCM and CAIQ v4.1 in January 2026. CAIQ is the questionnaire companion to the Cloud Controls Matrix and is designed around transparency into cloud security controls; a specific CAIQ v4.1 form is used for STAR Level 1 submissions. Shared Assessments’ SIG is a broader third-party risk management standard. Its current product spans security, privacy, resilience, supply-chain and other vendor-risk domains and follows an annual content-release cycle. Treating the two questionnaires as interchangeable would erase the reason each exists.
The scope decision comes before answer reuse
A previous CAIQ answer can be useful evidence for a SIG question, and vice versa, when both questions genuinely ask about the same implemented control and the same product or deployment scope. It should not be copied merely because the wording looks similar. The reusable object is therefore not just the prose answer. It is the answer together with its evidence, owner, reviewed state, product scope and any assumptions that made the answer true.
Version drift needs to be visible
CSA’s 4.1 transition guidance allows a transition period from earlier CCM/CAIQ versions, while Shared Assessments maintains annual SIG releases and provides migration or version-delta mechanisms. A response library that does not record questionnaire version can quietly reuse an answer against a question whose control mapping or scope has changed. Version should therefore be part of the evidence key. When a new CAIQ or SIG release arrives, changed or newly scoped questions should be re-reviewed instead of inheriting “approved” status by default.
Standardization reduces repeated typing, not claim authority
A standardized questionnaire makes mapping and reuse easier, but the responding organization still owns the outward claim. The system assembling an answer should show the exact supporting source and let the responsible human decide whether it still applies. Unknown, not-applicable and needs-evidence states are valid outcomes. This keeps standardization from turning into false assurance. The workflow can automate retrieval and comparison while keeping customer-facing security claims under explicit human authority.
VendorOS should map questionnaires, not pretend to replace the standards
A focused questionnaire-rescue workflow can ingest an incoming CAIQ, SIG or customer-specific workbook, map recurring intent to approved evidence and assemble a source-linked draft for review. It does not replace CSA STAR, Shared Assessments, a GRC platform or the buyer’s own due-diligence decision. The practical goal is to make the evidence reusable without making the claims generic: same question family where appropriate, exact source and scope every time, and explicit human approval before the answer leaves the company.
Primary sources
Sources used for this article
Continue the job