Information classification and handling procedures

The information classification and handling procedures requirement means you must define clear information classes for automotive partner information, apply labels, and enforce handling rules (access, sharing, storage, transmission, retention, and disposal) that match each class. To operationalize it fast, standardize a small label set, map each label to non-negotiable handling controls, then prove it works with system configurations, training, and audit-ready records ¹.

Key takeaways:

• Define a practical classification scheme for automotive partner information and make it mandatory ¹.
• Tie every classification level to specific handling rules you can enforce through technical controls and process gates ¹.
• Keep evidence that the rules are applied in real workflows, not just written in a policy ¹.

For TISAX-scoped work, information classification is not a paperwork exercise. Assessors want to see that partner information (for example, OEM drawings, test data, pricing, project timelines, incident reports, and access credentials) gets a consistent label and that the label drives how people and systems handle it. The operational goal is simple: reduce accidental disclosure and uncontrolled propagation of partner data across email, collaboration tools, endpoints, and third parties.

Most compliance teams get stuck in two places: (1) they create too many classes that nobody can apply correctly, and (2) they define handling rules that are not enforceable in tooling. The fastest path is to keep the taxonomy small, attach unambiguous handling requirements to each class, and build the controls into the tools people already use: identity and access management, file sharing, DLP rules, encryption, retention, and secure disposal.

This page gives requirement-level implementation guidance you can execute without waiting for a multi-quarter program. It prioritizes what an assessor can validate: governance, classification rules, technical enforcement, user enablement, and evidence ¹. It also highlights the common audit hangups that cause “implemented on paper” findings.

Regulatory text

Provided excerpt (non-licensed summary): “Baseline implementation-intent summary derived from publicly available framework overviews; licensed standard text is not reproduced in this record.” The implementation intent summary for this requirement is: “Classify automotive partner information and enforce handling protections.” ¹

What this means for an operator

You need two things that work together:

1. A classification decision: a repeatable way to label information received from or created for automotive partners.

2. Handling protections: enforceable rules that follow the label through the information lifecycle (create → store → share → process → archive → delete), including controls that prevent broad access, uncontrolled sharing, and insecure transmission ¹.

If you can’t show both (classification + enforcement + evidence), you’ll struggle to demonstrate effective implementation.

Plain-English interpretation of the requirement

You must treat automotive partner information as an asset with defined sensitivity levels. Each level must have clearly stated handling rules and practical safeguards. People must know which label to use, and systems must backstop human behavior with access constraints and sharing protections ¹.

In practice, “handling procedures” means:

• Access: who can see it and how access is approved.
• Storage: where it may live (approved repositories) and where it may not (personal drives, unmanaged devices).
• Transmission: how it can be sent (approved secure channels, encryption expectations).
• Sharing: when external sharing is allowed and what checks happen first.
• Retention & disposal: how long to keep it and how to delete or destroy it safely.

Who it applies to

Entities: Automotive suppliers and automotive service providers participating in TISAX-driven assurance activities ¹.

Operational context: Any team that receives, creates, processes, or stores automotive partner information, including:

• Engineering (CAD files, BOMs, test results)
• Program management (roadmaps, milestones, budgets)
• Manufacturing / quality (process specs, defect reports)
• IT / security (logs, access lists, incident data)
• Procurement / commercial (pricing, contracts, SOWs)
• Customer support and field service (case data, diagnostics)

Systems in scope (typical):

• Email and collaboration platforms
• File shares, PLM, ALM, ticketing tools
• Source code repositories
• Endpoint devices and mobile devices
• Cloud storage and data analytics environments
• Third-party sharing portals and MFT/SFTP solutions

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

Step 1: Define a small classification scheme you can run

Create a classification standard with a limited set of labels and clear decision rules. A common, workable pattern:

• Public (approved for external release)
• Internal (business use, low sensitivity)
• Confidential (partner/business sensitive)
• Restricted (high sensitivity partner data; tight access)

Write decision criteria in plain language: “If this contains partner design data or is marked confidential by the partner, classify as Confidential or Restricted.” Avoid ambiguous criteria like “important information.”

Step 2: Map each class to handling rules you can enforce

Build a “label → handling” matrix. Keep it short and testable. Example controls to include:

• Access control baseline (RBAC/ABAC groups, least privilege, approval workflow for Restricted)
• Sharing rules (no public links for Confidential/Restricted; external sharing requires explicit allow-list)
• Encryption expectations (device encryption for endpoints; encrypted transfer for Restricted channels)
• Storage locations (approved systems only; block or detect uploads to unapproved repositories)
• Retention (retain only as required by contract/business need; controlled deletion)
• Copy/print/export restrictions where feasible for Restricted

This is where controls become audit-ready because assessors can test configurations and logs ¹.

Step 3: Implement labeling in the tools people use

Pick the enforcement points that reduce human discretion:

• Document templates with default classification fields.
• Repository/folder structures aligned to classification (Restricted libraries with separate permissions).
• Email subject/body tags or banner markings where your tooling supports it.
• Data Loss Prevention (DLP) rules keyed to labels and partner identifiers (project names, file fingerprints, watermarking where appropriate).

You do not need perfection on day one. You do need a coherent approach that covers primary channels for partner information.

Step 4: Gate external sharing and third-party access

Set a minimum bar for any external transfer of Confidential/Restricted partner information:

• Approved transfer methods (secure portal, MFT, controlled collaboration space).
• Verification of recipient identity and authorization.
• Contractual and need-to-know check for new third parties.
• Review of link settings and expiration for shared items.
• Logging of transfers for Restricted.

Tie this to third-party risk management: external access is a risk decision, not a convenience decision.

Step 5: Train and test the process (don’t rely on policy attestations)

Train the groups most likely to handle partner data: engineering, program teams, IT admins, customer support. Focus training on:

• How to choose the right label in common scenarios.
• Where Restricted data may be stored.
• What to do if mislabeled information is found.

Then test it:

• Spot-check a sample of partner-related repositories for labels and access.
• Run a tabletop: “Engineer needs to send test results to an OEM contact. What channel and label apply?”

Step 6: Monitor and correct

Create a lightweight monitoring loop:

• DLP alerts for attempted external sharing of Confidential/Restricted.
• Access review checks for Restricted libraries and partner project spaces.
• Exceptions register for “business needs” that deviate from standard handling, with time limits and approvals.

If you use Daydream, treat this requirement as a control bundle: policy + handling matrix + system configuration evidence + sampling results. Daydream can help you track artifacts per control and keep assessor-ready proof aligned to TISAX expectations ¹.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Keep evidence that shows design and operation:

Governance

• Information classification policy/standard (approved, versioned)
• Classification/handling matrix (label-to-control mapping)
• Defined roles: data owners, system owners, approvers

Operational procedures

• Procedure for labeling and reclassification
• External sharing procedure for Confidential/Restricted
• Exception process with approvals and expiration

Technical enforcement

• Screenshots/exports of access control configurations for Restricted repositories
• DLP / sharing control configurations tied to labels
• Approved tools list for storing/transferring partner information
• Encryption configuration standards for endpoints and approved transfer channels

Proof of operation

• Training records for in-scope teams
• Samples from repositories showing labels applied
• Access review results for Restricted areas
• DLP or audit logs showing detections, blocks, and follow-up actions
• Exception register entries and closure evidence

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect assessors to press on these points ¹:

• “Show me your classification labels and the decision rules. Who owns them?”
• “Pick one partner project. Demonstrate how files are labeled and where they are stored.”
• “How do you prevent someone from sharing a Restricted file via an open link?”
• “How do you control access for contractors or other third parties?”
• “Show evidence that the handling rules are followed: logs, reviews, or sampling.”
• “How do you handle misclassification and reclassification?”

Hangup to avoid: only presenting a policy PDF. If you cannot demonstrate enforcement in systems and real workflows, the control will read as aspirational.

Frequent implementation mistakes and how to avoid them

1. Too many classification levels.
   Fix: reduce to a small set and publish crisp examples per label.

2. Handling rules that can’t be enforced.
   Fix: write rules that map to actual platform settings (sharing permissions, group access, DLP conditions).

3. Treating email as an exception channel.
   Fix: define secure transfer defaults; limit email attachments for Restricted; require secure links from approved repositories.

4. No ownership for partner information.
   Fix: assign data owners for partner projects who can approve access and exceptions.

5. No evidence of operation.
   Fix: schedule periodic sampling, keep dated screenshots/exports, and retain access review outputs.

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Operationally, the risk is still clear: misclassified or poorly handled partner information can trigger contractual breaches, loss of customer trust, access revocation, and incident response obligations. For TISAX assessments, the most common failure mode is weak evidence that handling protections are actually enforced ¹.

30/60/90-day execution plan

Days 1–30: Define and stand up the minimum viable program

• Publish classification labels and decision rules.
• Create the label-to-handling matrix with non-negotiable controls for Confidential and Restricted.
• Identify systems where partner information lives; pick the primary repositories to bring into compliance first.
• Implement baseline access groups for partner projects; remove broad access.
• Draft external sharing procedure and exception process.
• Start evidence collection structure (policy approvals, matrices, configuration exports).

Days 31–60: Enforce in tooling and roll out training

• Configure sharing restrictions for Confidential/Restricted repositories.
• Deploy DLP/sharing guardrails aligned to labels and partner identifiers where available.
• Roll out targeted training to high-risk teams; add quick-reference examples.
• Run the first sampling review across one or two partner projects; log findings and remediation.

Days 61–90: Prove operational maturity and close gaps

• Expand enforcement and labeling standards to additional repositories and teams.
• Run an access review for Restricted areas; document approvals and removals.
• Test one end-to-end scenario (create → store → share → archive/delete) and keep the evidence package.
• Review exceptions; close or renew with documented approval.
• Prepare an assessor-ready packet in Daydream: controls, artifacts, test results, and corrective actions aligned to the information classification and handling procedures requirement ¹.

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we need to label every file to meet the information classification and handling procedures requirement?

You need a repeatable method to classify partner information and show it drives handling protections in real workflows ¹. Start with the repositories and document types that most often contain partner data, then expand coverage.

What’s the fastest way to make handling rules enforceable?

Write the handling matrix in terms of system settings you can actually configure: access groups, sharing link restrictions, approved storage locations, and monitored transfer channels. If a rule can’t be tested in tooling or sampling, rewrite it.

How do we handle partner-provided labels that don’t match our internal scheme?

Map partner labels to your internal classes in a documented crosswalk, then apply your handling rules to the mapped class. Keep the crosswalk as part of your classification standard so teams don’t guess.

Our engineers insist they need to share files quickly with external parties. What control pattern works?

Provide an approved sharing path that is faster than ad hoc methods: a controlled collaboration space or secure transfer channel with predefined access groups and logging. Then restrict open-link sharing for Confidential/Restricted in your standard tools.

How do we show evidence without overwhelming the team with screenshots?

Standardize an evidence pack per system: configuration export, one or two dated screenshots for key settings, and a short sampling report showing labeled items and access constraints. Keep it consistent so it’s easy to refresh before assessment.

Where does Daydream fit if we already have policies and tools?

Daydream helps you operationalize evidence: assign owners per control, track artifacts by system, capture sampling results, and keep a single assessor-ready record for the information classification and handling procedures requirement ¹.

Related compliance topics

• 2025 SEC Marketing Rule Examination Focus Areas
• Access and identity controls
• Access Control (AC)
• Access control and identity discipline
• Access control lifecycle management

Footnotes

1. ENX TISAX overview