CMMC Level 2 Practice 3.3.6: Provide audit record reduction and report generation to support on-demand analysis and

To meet CMMC Level 2 Practice 3.3.6, you must be able to quickly reduce large volumes of audit logs into usable summaries and generate reports on demand for investigation, monitoring, and assessor review. In practice, that means centralized log collection plus repeatable queries, dashboards, and exportable reports that analysts can run without engineering work. ¹

Key takeaways:

• You need “on-demand” reporting: predefined queries, filters, and exports that work during an incident and during assessment. ¹
• “Reduction” means turning noisy event streams into actionable slices (by system, user, time window, event type), not deleting evidence. ¹
• Assessors will look for proof the capability works across the CUI scope, not just in one logging tool screenshot. ²

CMMC Level 2 Practice 3.3.6 sits in the Audit and Accountability family and maps directly to NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 control 3.3.6. ¹ The requirement is narrow but operationally loaded: you need the ability to take raw audit records (often scattered across endpoints, servers, cloud services, and network devices), reduce them into a form an analyst can interpret, and generate reports immediately when asked. ¹

For a CCO, GRC lead, or compliance officer, the fastest path is to treat 3.3.6 as an “analytics capability” control: define the log sources in CUI scope, ensure they feed into a centralized platform, and build a small set of saved searches and reports tied to your incident response and access monitoring use cases. Then capture recurring evidence that proves the reports are repeatable and available without special access. ²

This page gives requirement-level implementation steps, evidence to retain, and the audit questions that tend to break teams during CMMC Level 2 assessments aligned to 32 CFR Part 170. ³

Regulatory text

Requirement (as provided): “CMMC Level 2 practice mapped to NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2 requirement 3.3.6 (Provide audit record reduction and report generation to support on-demand analysis and).” ¹

Operator interpretation (what you must be able to do):

• Reduce audit records: Provide methods (filters, correlation, aggregation, parsing, normalization) that let staff narrow audit data to the subset needed to answer a question quickly, such as “what did this user do in the last day” or “what systems accepted failed logins overnight.” ¹
• Generate reports on demand: Produce readable outputs (dashboards, saved searches, scheduled or ad hoc exports) without rebuilding queries each time, and without relying on one specialist. “On demand” means during an incident call or assessor interview you can run the report and show results for the in-scope environment. ¹

CMMC assessments evaluate whether practices are implemented for the environment that stores, processes, or transmits CUI, within the CMMC program structure in 32 CFR Part 170. ³

Plain-English requirement (what it really means)

You collect a lot of logs. 3.3.6 requires that you can make those logs usable fast.

Reduction and reporting are the difference between:

• “We have logs somewhere” and
• “We can answer specific security questions quickly, repeatedly, and with evidence.”

A strong implementation gives your team:

• A single place (or a clearly governed set of places) to query audit records for CUI systems
• A consistent way to slice logs by who/what/when/where
• A repeatable set of reports used for security operations and assessment support ¹

Who it applies to

Entities: Defense industrial base organizations and other federal contractors that handle CUI and must achieve CMMC Level 2 for applicable contracts. ³

Operational scope: Any system component within your CUI boundary that generates audit records relevant to security and compliance, typically including:

• Identity systems (directory/SSO), privileged access paths
• Endpoints and servers in the CUI enclave
• Network/security tooling that logs access, authentication, and security events
• Cloud services used to store or process CUI (where applicable) ¹

People: Security operations, IT, and incident response teams run the reports; GRC owns the control narrative and evidence package; system owners ensure the right logs exist and are forwarded.

What you actually need to do (step-by-step)

1) Define “audit record reduction” and “report generation” for your environment

Create a short internal standard that answers:

• What log platform(s) are authoritative for in-scope audit analysis
• What “on-demand” means operationally (examples of questions you must answer)
• Who can run queries and exports (roles and access) ¹

Deliverable: a one-page “3.3.6 operating procedure” referenced by your SSP/control narrative. ²

2) Inventory in-scope log sources and confirm coverage

Build a table for the CUI boundary:

• System/component name and owner
• Log type(s): auth, admin actions, data access, security alerts
• Forwarding method (agent, API, syslog, native connector)
• Retention location (central repository, cloud logging workspace) ¹

This is where teams usually find gaps (for example, endpoints log locally but do not forward, or SaaS audit logs exist but are not collected).

3) Centralize or federate with documented queries

You do not need a single tool by brand, but you do need:

• A clear path to query in-scope logs
• Normalized fields where feasible (user, host, source IP, event type, timestamp)
• The ability to export results for case files and assessment evidence ¹

Practical pattern: centralized SIEM/log analytics for correlation plus source-of-truth audit portals for certain SaaS logs, tied together with documented, repeatable report steps.

4) Build a minimum viable report set (saved searches + outputs)

Define a small set of “assessment-ready” reports aligned to common audit questions. Examples you can implement in almost any logging platform:

• Authentication activity by user (successful/failed) for a selected time window
• Privileged group membership changes
• Administrative actions on key systems (server admin events, policy changes)
• Account lifecycle events (create/disable/delete/reset)
• Security-relevant events for CUI repositories (access attempts, permission changes) ¹

For each report, document:

• Data sources
• Query logic or click-path
• Output format (dashboard view + export)
• Owner and backup operator

5) Prove it works with a repeatable “on-demand drill”

Run a tabletop-style log drill:

• Pick a user and a system in the CUI boundary
• Ask an operator to produce two reports live (screen recording or screenshots)
• Export results and attach them to an internal ticket/case as evidence ²

6) Operationalize: integrate reports into security workflows

Make the reports part of:

• Incident response evidence collection
• Routine access monitoring
• Change management verification for privileged activities ¹

If the reports are only built for assessment week, they tend to fail in front of assessors.

7) Evidence capture cadence and governance

Set a recurring activity:

• Quarterly: validate log source coverage for the CUI boundary table
• Monthly (or aligned to your SOC rhythm): run and retain sample outputs for key reports
• After major changes: revalidate queries and connectors ²

If you use Daydream for control operations, map 3.3.6 directly to a documented control procedure and set automated reminders for recurring evidence capture, so you can produce assessor-ready artifacts without rebuilding the story each cycle. ²

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence that shows both design (you planned it) and operation (it runs):

Core artifacts

• Control narrative / SSP section describing how you provide reduction and on-demand reporting for in-scope audit records. ¹
• CUI boundary log source inventory (table) with owners and forwarding status. ¹
• Saved searches / report definitions (screenshots, exported query definitions, or documented click-paths). ¹
• Sample report outputs (exports or PDFs) showing you can filter by time window, user, host, and event category. ¹
• Access control list / RBAC evidence showing authorized roles can run reports and exports. ¹
• Change records for report updates (tickets, pull requests, or change approvals). ²

Nice-to-have artifacts (often decisive in assessments)

• Log drill tickets/cases with attached exports and timestamps
• Data dictionary of normalized log fields used for correlation
• Connector/agent health dashboards showing ingestion status ²

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Assessors and internal auditors tend to probe these areas:

1. “Show me an on-demand report.”
   Hangup: Teams demo a dashboard that looks good but cannot be exported or filtered reliably across the CUI boundary. ¹

2. “Which systems are covered?”
   Hangup: No authoritative inventory of log sources for the enclave; the answer becomes a verbal walkthrough. ²

3. “Can someone besides the SIEM engineer run it?”
   Hangup: Reports exist, but only one admin can access them. That is fragile and often viewed as not operationalized. ¹

4. “How do you reduce records?”
   Hangup: The program describes retention, not reduction. Reduction is about analysis features: filtering, aggregation, correlation, and meaningful views. ¹

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

• Mistake: Treating reduction as deletion or truncation.
  Fix: Keep raw logs per your retention approach; use parsing, filtering, and summarization for analysis views. ¹

• Mistake: Reports exist but are not repeatable.
  Fix: Use saved searches with named parameters (time range, system scope) and document the operator steps. ¹

• Mistake: Only network logs, no identity/audit trail for admins.
  Fix: Prioritize identity, privileged access, and admin action sources because they answer most “who did what” questions. ¹

• Mistake: Unclear CUI boundary.
  Fix: Tie the log inventory and report scope back to your CUI system boundary definition in the SSP. ²

• Mistake: Evidence is screenshots with no context.
  Fix: Pair outputs with a short cover note: report name, time window, scope, operator, and what question it answers. ²

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the supplied source catalog for this specific practice, so this page does not list case examples.

Operationally, failure modes for 3.3.6 tend to show up during incidents and assessments:

• You cannot prove what happened because logs are too noisy or scattered.
• You lose time during containment because analysts cannot quickly pull relevant slices.
• You struggle to demonstrate CMMC Level 2 practice implementation across the CUI boundary under 32 CFR Part 170 assessment expectations. ³

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize scope + minimum capability)

• Confirm the CUI boundary and in-scope systems list; align with SSP ownership. ²
• Produce the log source inventory table and identify missing sources.
• Stand up or validate centralized access to logs for in-scope systems.
• Create a minimum set of saved searches for identity and privileged activity. ¹

Days 31–60 (make it repeatable + evidence-driven)

• Formalize report definitions (query + purpose + operator steps).
• Assign RBAC and train backup operators to run and export reports.
• Run the first on-demand drill and file the outputs as evidence. ²
• Add change control around modifications to queries and connectors.

Days 61–90 (harden + scale across the enclave)

• Expand coverage to remaining in-scope systems and SaaS audit sources.
• Add correlation/normalization where it reduces analyst time (common fields, tagging by system owner).
• Operationalize recurring evidence capture (sample exports and connector health checks).
• Package artifacts into an assessor-ready binder in your GRC system (Daydream or equivalent) mapped directly to 3.3.6 for fast retrieval during interviews. ²

Frequently Asked Questions

What counts as “audit record reduction” for 3.3.6?

Reduction means you can filter, aggregate, and correlate raw audit events into a smaller, relevant set for analysis (by user, host, time window, event type). It does not mean deleting or shortening retention. ¹

Do we need a SIEM to satisfy CMMC Level 2 Practice 3.3.6: provide audit record reduction and report generation to support on-demand analysis and requirement?

The requirement is capability-based, not tool-based. You need a reliable way to query in-scope audit records and generate reports on demand; many teams meet this with a SIEM, but other log analytics approaches can work if they are documented and repeatable. ¹

What does an assessor usually ask us to demonstrate live?

Expect a request to run a report during the interview: “show authentication failures for this user,” “show privileged changes,” or “show admin actions on a system in the enclave.” Prepare saved searches and a clear click-path or query reference. ²

How do we handle SaaS audit logs (e.g., M365) that live outside our SIEM?

Document the authoritative source, define the saved reports there or ingest to your central platform, and show the export method. The key is that the reports are on demand and tied to the CUI scope. ¹

What evidence is strongest if we can’t share raw logs with auditors or assessors?

Provide redacted report outputs, query definitions, and screenshots that show parameters and scope, plus a drill ticket showing who ran it and when. Keep raw logs internal while proving the reporting capability works. ²

How do we prevent this control from becoming a once-a-year scramble?

Put report runs and evidence capture on a recurring cadence, and tie report updates to change management. A GRC workflow in Daydream can track ownership, reminders, and evidence attachments mapped to 3.3.6. ²

Footnotes

1. NIST SP 800-171 Rev. 2

2. DoD CMMC Program Guidance

3. 32 CFR Part 170