DORA's evidence requirement collapses if your evidence lives in 12 systems.
The EU Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) — in force since January 2025 — requires you to demonstrate operational resilience for every critical function, including document workflows. Article 9 (ICT risk management). Article 11 (response and recovery). Article 28 (third-party risk). The supervisor (EBA, ESMA, EIOPA, national competent authority) wants the evidence in a defensible package, on demand, in production format.
Talk to a CISO solutions engineer · Read the DORA compliance overlay · Read the audit-ledger pillar
"DORA requires me to prove operational resilience for every critical document workflow — I have evidence in 12 systems."
"DORA requires me to prove operational resilience for every critical document workflow — I have evidence in 12 systems." — Chief Information Security Officer, EU bank (— Severity 5 × Frequency 4 × Urgency 5)
The CISO's specific challenges:
- Critical functions are not single systems — they span content, CLM, e-signature, eDiscovery, audit, identity. Each touched by a critical document workflow. Each with its own RTO / RPO assertion to defend.
- Backup + recovery evidence per critical function is required by Article 11. Cross-region replication, recovery-time evidence, recovery-point evidence, restore-test evidence — all per workflow.
- Third-party-risk evidence per Article 28 requires assertions about every ICT vendor in the critical-function chain. Each vendor's audit posture must be tracked.
- Incident-reporting timelines per Article 19 require near-real-time evidence assembly when an incident strikes.
What TeamSync gives the CISO under DORA.
1. Critical document workflows live in one platform.
Consolidating content + CLM + e-signature + eDiscovery + audit into one platform means each critical workflow has one ICT-risk surface, not twelve. Article 9 risk-management evidence is one assessment, not twelve.
2. The audit ledger is the operational-resilience evidence ledger.
Every event in every critical workflow anchored in the Merkle audit ledger. Article 12 record-keeping satisfied by default. The supervisor's "show me what happened in this workflow during the period" question is one query.
3. The DORA evidence kit is pre-assembled per critical function.
The TeamSync DORA overlay produces, on demand, the evidence package per critical document workflow: - ICT risk-management evidence (Article 9) - Backup + cross-region recovery evidence (Article 11) - Recovery-time + recovery-point measurement (Article 11) - Third-party ICT-vendor register (Article 28) - Incident-history with timeline (Article 19) - Security-monitoring evidence (Article 9)
See the DORA compliance overlay.
4. RBAC File-Level Backup + Restore preserves the recovery evidence.
RBAC Backup & Restore keeps cross-region snapshots with ACL preserved through restore. Restore tests anchor in the audit ledger. Article 11 recovery-evidence requirement met without manual assembly.
5. Crypto-shred respects the regulatory retention.
Crypto-shred destruction is suspended for documents under hold or under regulatory retention. The CISO does not have to choose between Article 17 GDPR and DORA evidence preservation; both are honoured simultaneously.
What changes for the CISO under DORA.
| DORA Article | What changes |
|---|---|
| Article 9 (ICT risk management) | Single platform = single ICT-risk surface |
| Article 11 (response + recovery) | Pre-assembled cross-region recovery evidence |
| Article 12 (record-keeping) | Cryptographically attested audit ledger |
| Article 19 (incident reporting) | Near-real-time evidence assembly |
| Article 28 (third-party risk) | Vendor-register evidence pre-formatted |
| Supervisor request response | From multi-week project to days |
Compliance frameworks served.
| Framework | Coverage |
|---|---|
| DORA | Articles 9, 11, 12, 19, 28 |
| SOC 2 Type II | Audit + access + change + monitoring controls |
| ISO/IEC 27001 | ISMS conformance |
| GDPR Art. 17 | Right-to-erasure with regulatory-retention awareness |
| EBA Guidelines on ICT and Security Risk Management | EBA/GL/2019/04 |
| NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 | Identify, Protect, Detect, Respond, Recover, Govern |
How TeamSync compares for the BFSI CISO under DORA.
| Capability | TeamSync | Microsoft 365 + Purview Premium | OpenText for FSI | Box for FSI | Newgen BFSI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DORA evidence kit pre-assembled | ✅ | Manual assembly | Manual | Manual | Manual |
| Single ICT-risk surface across content workflow | ✅ | M365 + connectors | Per-product | Box + integrations | NewgenONE |
| Cryptographic audit ledger | ✅ Merkle | Purview audit log | Standard log | Standard log | Standard log |
| Cross-region recovery evidence | ✅ Pre-formatted | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
| Third-party-risk register | ✅ | Manual | Manual | Manual | Manual |
| Per-cluster transparent pricing | ✅ | Per-licence stack | Bundled | Tiered | Per-tier |
CTAs.
| If you are… | Do this |
|---|---|
| CISO in a EU bank under DORA | Talk to a solutions engineer |
| Chief Compliance Officer | Read the CCO page |
| Operational Resilience Lead | Read the DORA compliance overlay |
| Internal Auditor under DORA Article 6 | Read the audit-ledger pillar |
| Buyer running a DORA-readiness RFP | Read the compliance regime shift use case |
Frequently asked questions.
Does DORA apply only to EU-headquartered firms?
DORA applies to financial entities operating in the EU regardless of where their headquarters sit. US, UK, Swiss, and Singaporean financial firms with EU subsidiaries or critical EU operations are in scope.
What about UK firms post-Brexit?
UK firms are subject to FCA and PRA Operational Resilience requirements (PS21/3 and PS6/21), which substantially mirror DORA. The TeamSync evidence kit covers both regimes.
Does the evidence kit work for our supervisor (EBA / ESMA / EIOPA / national competent authority)?
Yes. The evidence pack format is configurable per supervisor. National competent authorities (BaFin, ACPR, CNMV, Banca d'Italia, etc.) have specific format preferences; TeamSync's solutions team brings the templates.
Can the audit ledger be supervisor-witnessed?
Yes via the externalised transparency-log pattern. The published root hash is anchored in a customer-controlled witness log; the supervisor can verify integrity via the witness without trusting TeamSync as a single party.
Related capabilities
- RBAC File-Level Backup & Restore, Intelligent Repository, DocuTalk, eDiscovery, Tamper-evident audit ledger