Article 31: General aspects concerning supervision and enforcement

To operationalize the article 31: general aspects concerning supervision and enforcement requirement, build an “exam-ready” compliance posture: map NIS 2 obligations to owners and evidence, prove incident reporting readiness, and show third-party dependency oversight. Article 31 sets the expectation that authorities will supervise and enforce, so your job is to be continuously auditable. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Key takeaways:

• Treat Article 31 as an instruction to be supervision-ready, not as a standalone control objective. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Maintain a NIS 2 obligation register with scope, owners, milestones, and evidence pointers across jurisdictions. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Make incident triage/reporting and third-party dependency oversight demonstrable through retained artifacts, not policy statements. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Article 31 is short, but it should change how you run your NIS 2 program day to day. It states that Member States must ensure competent authorities “effectively supervise and take the measures necessary” to drive compliance. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31) For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, that translates into a practical requirement: assume you will be asked to explain, demonstrate, and evidence how NIS 2 obligations are implemented in your environment, including how you respond under pressure (incidents) and how you govern what you do not directly control (third parties).

Because NIS 2 is a directive, the supervisory mechanics will be executed through national transposition and local competent authorities. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555) You do not “comply with Article 31” by writing a memo. You comply by running an integrated governance system that stays coherent across jurisdictions, can produce evidence quickly, and can survive follow-up questions.

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance you can put into motion immediately: who owns what, what to build, how to evidence it, and what auditors and supervisors typically probe first.

Regulatory text

Excerpt (Article 31(1)): “Member States shall ensure that their competent authorities effectively supervise and take the measures necessary to ensure compliance with this Directive.” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Operator interpretation (what you must do):

• Be ready for supervision. Expect information requests, targeted reviews, and follow-up actions from your competent authority, shaped by national implementation. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Prove compliance operationally. Authorities evaluate what is implemented and working, not what exists on paper. Your controls must produce durable evidence. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Treat NIS 2 as a governed system. The supervision/enforcement expectation forces you to connect governance, incident readiness, and third-party oversight into one audit-ready story. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Plain-English requirement interpretation

Article 31 doesn’t add a new technical safeguard. It creates a supervisory reality: your organization must be able to show a competent authority, on demand, that you understand your NIS 2 obligations and have implemented them in a controlled, measurable way. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

For most organizations, the fastest path is to treat “supervision-ready” as a deliverable with three pillars:

1. Obligation clarity (what applies, where, and who owns it). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
2. Operational readiness (incident handling, escalation, and reporting workflows that work in real time). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
3. Dependency control (third parties that could affect service continuity or security are identified, risk-rated, and tracked through remediation). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Who it applies to

Entity scope: Organizations in scope of NIS 2 as implemented in the EU Member States where they operate (the directive is implemented through national law). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)

Operational context where Article 31 matters most:

• You operate in multiple EU jurisdictions and need a consistent compliance approach with local overlays. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)
• You rely on third parties for critical services (cloud, managed security, telecoms, data processing, OT maintenance, key software). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• You have a mature policy set but weak “show me” evidence: unclear control ownership, scattered documentation, or incident reporting that depends on specific individuals. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

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

Step 1: Build a NIS 2 supervision-ready obligation register

Create a single register that connects legal obligations to operations. This is your primary artifact for supervisors.

Minimum fields to include:

• Obligation / topic area (plain language)
• Jurisdiction(s) and entity/site/service in scope
• Control owner (named role)
• Implementation status and milestones
• Evidence pointer(s) (where proof lives)
• Last test date (for incident workflows and key operational controls)

This directly supports the expectation of effective supervision and enforcement readiness. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Practical tip: In Daydream, teams typically model this as a “requirements-to-controls-to-evidence” map so evidence requests do not become a document scavenger hunt.

Step 2: Define the supervisory interface (who talks to the authority)

Write down:

• Primary and backup points of contact for competent authority communications
• Internal routing for regulator inquiries (Legal, Security, Operations, Communications)
• Approval checkpoints for written responses and submissions
• A “request intake” log with timestamps, owner, due date, and closure evidence

Why it matters: effective supervision becomes painful when communications are ad hoc and undocumented. Article 31’s premise is that authorities will act to ensure compliance. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Step 3: Make incident triage, escalation, and reporting provable

Even though Article 31 is not the incident reporting article, it’s the enforcement wrapper that makes incident readiness testable. You should be able to demonstrate:

• Triage criteria and severity thresholds
• Escalation path to executive decision-makers
• Evidence retention for incident timeline decisions (what you knew, when, and who approved)

Retain artifacts that show the workflow works under stress (see “Evidence” below). (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Step 4: Integrate third-party dependencies into risk and assurance

Authorities commonly focus on “what could break you.” Build a dependency view that ties third parties to critical services and security outcomes:

• Identify critical third parties and what they support
• Record contract owners and renewal dates
• Track due diligence, security requirements, exceptions, and remediation tickets
• Document monitoring signals (attestations, incident notifications, performance SLAs, vulnerability disclosures)

This aligns with “measures necessary to ensure compliance” because your security outcomes often depend on external parties. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Step 5: Run internal supervision drills (tabletop, evidence pull, response QA)

Test the mechanics of supervision:

• Can you answer “what obligations apply to this service in this country” without debate?
• Can you produce the last incident drill, the last remediation status report, and the third-party risk decision trail?
• Can you show board/management oversight artifacts that connect to execution?

Document the drill results and corrective actions; those become strong evidence of operational control. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Use this as an evidence checklist for supervisory requests.

Governance & accountability

• NIS 2 obligation register with owners, scope notes, and evidence links (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Role definitions and RACI for cybersecurity governance and regulatory communications (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Management reporting pack: KPIs/KRIs, risk acceptance decisions, remediation status (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Incident readiness

• Incident response procedure and escalation matrix (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Triage/runbook artifacts: decision logs, timeline notes, post-incident reviews (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Evidence retention standard for incidents (what is saved, where, retention owner) (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Third-party dependency oversight

• Inventory of critical third parties mapped to services (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Due diligence packages, security requirements, exception approvals, remediation tracking (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Ongoing monitoring records and contract/security addenda references (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Supervision operations

• Regulator request intake log and response package archive (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Internal audits/assessments and closure evidence for findings (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these lines of questioning under a supervision model. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

1. Scope clarity: “Which entities/services are in scope in this Member State, and why?” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)
2. Ownership: “Who is accountable for each obligation, and how do they prove operation?” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
3. Evidence speed: “Show us the latest risk assessment outputs, remediation tracking, and incident drill artifacts.” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
4. Third parties: “Which third parties could cause a material operational or security impact, and what assurance do you have?” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
5. Consistency across jurisdictions: “How do you avoid conflicting implementations across countries?” (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)

Hangup pattern: teams can explain controls verbally but cannot produce consistent, time-stamped artifacts with clear ownership.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

1. Mistake: Treating Article 31 as “the regulator’s problem.”
   Fix: Translate it into your operating model: supervision interface, evidence system, and repeatable response process. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

2. Mistake: No obligation register, only scattered policies.
   Fix: Create one register that maps obligations to control owners and evidence pointers, then make it the backbone of reporting. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

3. Mistake: Incident reporting readiness depends on a single person.
   Fix: Codify triage/escalation and rehearse it. Keep decision logs and proof of testing. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

4. Mistake: Third-party risk is a questionnaire folder, not a governance process.
   Fix: Connect third-party dependencies to critical services, track exceptions and remediation, and require closure evidence. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Enforcement context and risk implications

Article 31 signals that supervision and enforcement are expected outcomes of NIS 2, executed through competent authorities at Member State level. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31) Your practical risk is not abstract “non-compliance,” it’s operational friction: inability to respond quickly to information requests, inconsistent scope positions across countries, and weak evidence that triggers deeper supervisory attention.

A useful way to frame this internally:

• Low risk posture: you can answer scope and control-operation questions quickly and consistently, with minimal cross-functional scrambling. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• High risk posture: you need emergency meetings to determine applicability, cannot find the latest artifacts, and third-party dependencies are not tied to services or remediation. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

First 30 days (stabilize supervision readiness)

• Stand up the NIS 2 obligation register and assign owners for every entry. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Define the competent authority communication path and create a regulator request intake log template. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Inventory critical third parties supporting critical services and identify missing due diligence/remediation items. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Days 31–60 (make it provable)

• Publish incident triage/escalation/reporting workflows with decision logging expectations. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Run a supervision drill: mock information request plus evidence pull from the obligation register. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Build a remediation tracker that links findings (internal, third-party, technical) to owners and closure evidence. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Days 61–90 (operationalize and sustain)

• Add recurring management reporting: top risks, remediation aging, third-party exceptions, incident readiness tests. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• Normalize evidence retention: a defined repository structure, naming convention, and access controls. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)
• If you need scale, implement Daydream to keep requirements, controls, and evidence linked so audits and supervisory inquiries become a retrieval task, not a reinvention. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

Frequently Asked Questions

Does Article 31 require us to take a specific cybersecurity measure?

Article 31 is a supervision and enforcement expectation, not a standalone technical control list. It means competent authorities will supervise compliance, so you need an auditable operating model and retained evidence. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

We operate in multiple EU countries. Do we need multiple programs?

You need one core program with jurisdiction-specific overlays driven by national transposition. The obligation register is the practical tool to keep scope positions, owners, and evidence consistent across countries. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555)

What is the single most important artifact to create first?

Build the NIS 2 obligation register with owners and evidence pointers. Without it, you cannot answer supervisory questions quickly or prove control operation consistently. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

How do we show “effective” compliance under supervision?

Show traceability: obligation → owner → implemented control → test/operation evidence → remediation when gaps exist. Supervisors look for execution and governance records, not intent statements. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

How should third-party risk management change for NIS 2 supervision?

Focus less on collecting questionnaires and more on mapping critical third parties to critical services, then tracking exceptions and remediation to closure with evidence. Your dependency story must be coherent and document-backed. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)

What should we do if evidence is scattered across tools and teams?

Define a system of record for NIS 2 evidence and a standard evidence index tied to the obligation register. Daydream is often the simplest way to keep requirements, controls, and evidence connected for fast retrieval. (Directive (EU) 2022/2555, Article 31)