Incident response and notification coordination

The incident response and notification coordination requirement in TISAX expects you to detect, contain, and recover from security incidents that impact partner data or operations, and to coordinate timely, accurate partner notifications using defined procedures. Operationalize it by building partner-aware incident playbooks, clear escalation paths, notification decisioning, and audit-ready evidence of tests and real incident handling ¹.

Key takeaways:

• Treat “partner impact” as a first-class trigger in your incident process, not an afterthought ¹.
• Maintain incident playbooks plus partner notification procedures that are usable under stress and provable in an assessment ¹.
• Evidence matters: retain incident tickets, timelines, comms logs, and post-incident actions mapped to partner obligations ¹.

TISAX assessments focus heavily on whether your incident response works in practice for the automotive supply chain, especially when an incident touches partner data, connected systems, or delivery commitments. The “incident response and notification coordination requirement” is less about having a policy PDF and more about being able to execute: identify an incident, control blast radius, communicate with impacted partners through agreed channels, and coordinate recovery activities without creating conflicting narratives or delays ¹.

For a Compliance Officer, CCO, or GRC lead, the fastest path is to translate this requirement into a small set of operational building blocks: partner-scoped incident classification, a notification decision tree aligned to contractual terms, named roles with backups, and repeatable artifacts that show assessors you can run the process end-to-end ¹. This page is written to help you implement quickly, avoid common assessment failures, and retain the exact evidence you will be asked for.

Requirement: Incident response and notification coordination (TISAX)

Plain-English interpretation

You must be able to respond to information security incidents that affect partner data and operations, and coordinate notification with partners in a controlled, reliable way ¹. That means:

• You can recognize when an incident may impact a partner (confidentiality, integrity, availability, delivery, or safety-related processes).
• You have defined procedures for notifying partners, including who approves messages, what information is shared, and how you track what was sent.
• You can prove this works through tests, training, and evidence from actual incidents ¹.

Who it applies to

Entities: Automotive suppliers and automotive service providers participating in the TISAX ecosystem ¹.
Operational context: Any environment where you store, process, transmit, or can otherwise impact partner information or operations. Common examples:

• Engineering collaboration platforms, PLM/CAD exchange, or ticketing portals used with OEMs and Tier 1s.
• Managed services, hosting, SOC services, or IT/OT support affecting partner-connected environments.
• Software development and update pipelines that deliver code or configurations used by partners.

If you handle multiple partners, you need a consistent core process plus partner-specific notification rules driven by contract and data-sharing terms.

Regulatory text

Provided excerpt (summary-level): “Baseline implementation-intent summary derived from publicly available framework overviews; licensed standard text is not reproduced in this record.” ¹
Implementation intent summary: “Respond to information security incidents affecting partner data and operations.” ¹

What the operator must do: implement an incident response capability that explicitly covers partner impact and partner coordination, including prepared playbooks and partner notification procedures that can be demonstrated during a TISAX assessment ¹.

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

Use this as an implementation checklist. The output of each step becomes evidence.

1) Define “partner-impacting incident” and your triggers

Create a short standard that answers: When do we treat an event as requiring partner coordination? Include at least these trigger categories:

• Partner data exposure risk: suspected access, exfiltration, or unauthorized disclosure involving partner information.
• Partner service disruption risk: outages or integrity issues in systems used to deliver services or exchange data with a partner.
• Supply chain compromise risk: compromise of build systems, signing keys, or distribution mechanisms that could affect partner environments.

Deliverable: incident classification and severity guide with partner-impact criteria.

2) Build partner-aware incident playbooks (minimum viable set)

Maintain playbooks that responders can run without inventing steps during an incident. Start with:

• Data exposure playbook (partner data involved)
• Ransomware/extortion playbook (including partner comms coordination)
• Third-party compromise playbook (your subcontractor impacts partner deliverables)
• Operational disruption playbook (availability/integrity incident impacting partner operations)

Each playbook should include:

• Detection inputs (alerts, user reports, partner reports)
• Containment actions (account disable, network segmentation, revoke tokens)
• Evidence preservation and logging expectations
• Internal escalation path (Security, Legal, Privacy, Comms, Account Owner)
• Partner notification decision points and templates

Deliverable: controlled playbooks (versioned, approved, accessible to on-call staff).
Control alignment: “Maintain incident playbooks and partner notification procedures.” ¹

3) Set up notification coordination mechanics

This requirement fails most often on coordination details. Nail these operational mechanics:

A. Partner notification roster

• Identify partner points of contact (security, operational, contractual).
• Assign internal owners per partner (account owner + security liaison).
• Define primary and backup contacts.

B. Notification decision tree Build a one-page flow:

• Is partner data or partner operations potentially impacted?
• Do contracts require notification under certain conditions?
• Who approves sending (Security lead, Legal, Account owner)?
• What channels are allowed (ticket portal, encrypted email, phone bridge)?
• What minimum facts must be validated before first notification?

C. Message control

• Use templates: initial notice, update, closure, and “no impact confirmed” where appropriate.
• Require a single “source of truth” incident timeline to avoid inconsistent messages.
• Log every outbound message and partner response.

Deliverables: partner contact register, decision tree, message templates, and a comms log format.

4) Integrate with contracts and third-party management

Incident notification obligations frequently live in:

• MSAs / DPAs / security schedules
• Customer-specific security requirements
• Subprocessor agreements that affect your ability to share incident details

Work with Legal/Procurement to:

• Map each partner’s notification obligations into your partner register.
• Identify constraints (what you can disclose, time expectations, required content).
• Ensure your subcontractors have reciprocal notification duties so you can meet partner commitments.

Deliverables: contract-to-control mapping and subcontractor notification clauses tracked in your third-party inventory.

5) Run exercises and fix gaps

Tabletop exercises are the fastest way to create credible evidence and find dead ends (missing contacts, unclear approvals, inaccessible templates). Exercise scenarios should include:

• Partner reports suspicious activity in a shared portal.
• Your SOC detects data exfil indicators from a partner-facing environment.
• A critical outage affects a partner integration pipeline.

Capture action items, owners, and completion evidence.

Deliverables: exercise agenda, participant list, results, and tracked remediation items.

6) Prove operational readiness with measurement that assessors accept

Avoid vanity metrics. Focus on proof points:

• Incidents are logged consistently and escalated when partner-impact triggers hit.
• Notifications are coordinated, approved, and tracked.
• Post-incident reviews produce corrective actions that are completed.

Deliverables: incident register extracts, sample incident packages, post-incident review reports.

Required evidence and artifacts to retain

Assessors will ask for artifacts that show the process operates, not just exists. Maintain:

• Incident response policy/standard covering partner-impact definition ¹
• Incident playbooks with version control and approval ¹
• Partner notification procedure (roles, approvals, channels) ¹
• Partner contact register with owners and backups
• Incident tickets/case files including timeline, containment actions, and decision rationale
• Notification records (what was sent, when, by whom, approvals, partner acknowledgments)
• Exercise/test records and remediation tracking
• Post-incident reviews with corrective/preventive actions and closure evidence

Practical tip: package “audit-ready incident bundles” for a small set of representative incidents (or exercises if incident volume is low).

Common exam/audit questions and hangups

Expect these and prepare crisp answers with artifacts:

1. “Show me how you decide an incident impacts a partner.” Provide your trigger criteria and a sample ticket where it was applied.
2. “Who can notify a partner, and who approves?” Show the RACI and a real approval record.
3. “How do you ensure consistent messaging across Security, Legal, and the account team?” Show templates and a comms log.
4. “How do you handle incidents caused by your subcontractors?” Show contract clauses and an escalation workflow.
5. “Prove you tested this.” Provide tabletop evidence and closed remediation items.

Frequent implementation mistakes (and how to avoid them)

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Playbooks exist but don’t mention partners	Assessors see a generic IR program, not partner coordination	Add partner-impact triggers and notification steps per playbook 1
No single owner for partner comms	Conflicting updates, slow approvals	Assign an incident communications lead and a backup; document approvals
Partner contacts are stale	Notifications fail or go to wrong inbox	Review partner roster on a regular cadence aligned to your account governance
Legal review becomes a bottleneck	Delays first notice	Pre-approve templates and define what can be sent in an initial notice vs later updates
No evidence of execution	“Trust us” does not pass assessment	Keep comms logs, timelines, exercises, and post-incident actions 1

Enforcement context and risk implications

No public enforcement cases were provided in the source catalog for this requirement. Practically, your risk is commercial and operational: partners may treat poor incident coordination as a breach of contract, suspend data exchange, or require corrective action plans as a condition of continuing the relationship. For TISAX assessments, weak evidence or unclear procedures can drive assessment findings and delay partner onboarding or re-approval ¹.

Practical 30/60/90-day execution plan

Day 0–30: Establish the minimum viable process

• Inventory partners and identify which systems/processes exchange partner data.
• Draft partner-impact incident criteria and severity mapping.
• Create or update two core playbooks: data exposure and operational disruption.
• Stand up a partner contact register with internal owners and backups.
• Build initial notification templates (initial, update, closure) and approval workflow.

Outputs: criteria doc, playbooks v1, contact register v1, templates v1, documented approval path.

Day 31–60: Prove it works and close obvious gaps

• Run at least one tabletop focused on partner notification coordination.
• Validate after-hours access to playbooks, templates, and partner contacts.
• Add playbooks for ransomware/extortion and subcontractor-caused incidents.
• Map top partner contracts to notification rules; document constraints and required channels.
• Create an “incident evidence bundle” template for assessors.

Outputs: exercise records, updated playbooks, contract-to-notification mapping, evidence bundle template.

Day 61–90: Operationalize and harden for assessment

• Train incident commanders, account owners, and communications approvers.
• Integrate subcontractor notification duties into third-party contract templates and onboarding checks.
• Run a second exercise with a different scenario and include a partner-facing stakeholder role.
• Review a sample of recent incidents/events to confirm correct partner-impact classification and documentation.

Outputs: training records, updated third-party clauses/process, second exercise evidence, internal quality review results.

Where Daydream fits (practical, earned)

If you are struggling with evidence consistency across incident tickets, partner registers, contracts, and playbooks, Daydream can serve as the system of record for control documentation and assessment-ready evidence packaging. The goal is not more paperwork; it’s a repeatable way to produce the same artifacts every time an assessor asks, “Show me how this worked on a real case.”

Frequently Asked Questions

Do we have to notify every partner for every incident?

No. Scope notification to incidents that affect partner data or partner operations, based on defined trigger criteria and contractual obligations ¹. Document the rationale when you decide “no partner impact.”

What if we don’t know yet whether partner data was affected?

Treat uncertainty as a decision point. Use your decision tree to send an initial notice when contractual terms or risk warrants it, clearly labeling what is confirmed versus under investigation, and log approvals and timing.

Who should own partner notification: Security, Legal, or the account team?

Assign a single accountable role for coordination (often the incident commander or communications lead), with Legal and the account owner as required approvers. The key is one workflow and one comms log, not parallel threads.

How do we handle incidents caused by our subcontractors or cloud providers?

Contract for upstream incident notification duties and define an internal escalation path so you can meet partner expectations. Keep the subcontractor’s notice, your triage notes, and partner communications together in the incident evidence bundle.

What evidence is most persuasive in a TISAX assessment?

Version-controlled playbooks, a documented notification procedure, and real execution artifacts: incident tickets, timelines, approval records, and comms logs ¹. A tabletop with closed remediation items is strong supporting evidence.

Can tabletop exercises substitute for real incident evidence?

Yes, when incident volume is low, tabletops can demonstrate readiness. Make them realistic: include partner contact validation, message approvals, and an end-to-end timeline that produces the same artifacts you would generate in a real incident.

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