Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
What Atlanta IT Auditors Look For in Data Recovery Plans That Most Companies Can’t Actually Demonstrate
The auditor asks to see your disaster recovery plan. You hand over a document—maybe it’s a formal writeup from a few years ago, maybe it’s notes your IT person compiled. The auditor reads through it, nods, and then asks: “Can you show me evidence that this actually works?”
That’s when things get uncomfortable. Because having a recovery plan written down and having a recovery plan that actually functions are two completely different things. And most Atlanta businesses are about to discover they have the former, not the latter.
The Document Versus the Reality
IT audits happen for different reasons—compliance requirements, insurance underwriting, due diligence for acquisitions, cybersecurity assessments. Regardless of the reason, auditors evaluating disaster recovery capabilities ask similar questions.
And they’ve learned not to trust documentation alone. They’ve seen too many companies with impressive-looking recovery plans that completely fall apart when tested. So they dig deeper, looking for evidence that the plan isn’t just theoretical.
Here’s what separates documentation from demonstrated capability:
Written Plan vs. Tested Plan
What companies show auditors:
A disaster recovery document that outlines backup procedures, recovery steps, roles and responsibilities, and recovery time objectives.
What auditors want to see:
Test results showing the plan was actually executed. When was the last test? What was recovered? How long did it take? What problems were encountered? How were they resolved?
One Atlanta company had a detailed 47-page disaster recovery plan. When the auditor asked for test results, they found the last documented test was from four years ago, and even that test only covered restoring a single folder, not actual operational recovery.
Finding: The plan exists but there’s no evidence it works. That’s a control deficiency, not a checkmark.
Backup Logs vs. Recovery Evidence
What companies show auditors:
Logs showing successful backup jobs running nightly. Green checkmarks, “completed successfully” messages, no obvious errors.
What auditors want to see:
Evidence that those backups can actually be restored. Verification logs showing backup integrity checks. Test restore records proving data can be recovered successfully.
Backup jobs can report success while producing corrupted or incomplete backup files. Without regular verification and test restores, those logs don’t prove anything about recovery capability.
Vendor Assurances vs. Internal Competency
What companies tell auditors:
“Our data backup & recovery Atlanta provider handles all of this. They manage our backups and would handle recovery if we needed it.”
What auditors want to see:
Documentation of what the vendor actually contractually provides. Internal procedures for initiating recovery. Evidence that someone in your organization understands the process and has credentials/access needed.
One company discovered during an audit that their managed service contract provided backup management but not disaster recovery services. Nobody internally knew how to actually restore systems if needed—they’d been assuming their vendor would just handle it.
Finding: External dependency without internal capability or verified contract coverage creates unacceptable risk.
RTO Objectives vs. Demonstrated Performance
What companies claim:
“Our Recovery Time Objective is 4 hours—we can be back operational within that timeframe.”
What auditors want to see:
Test results showing that RTO was actually achieved during recovery drills. If you’ve never tested full recovery, you can’t claim a specific RTO with any credibility.
Recovery always takes longer than you think. The first time you try to restore is not the time to discover your process has gaps, your documentation is outdated, or your restoration timeline was wildly optimistic.
The Questions That Expose the Gaps
Experienced IT auditors have learned which questions reveal whether a company has real recovery capability:
About Testing and Verification
“Show me your most recent disaster recovery test results.”
- Can you produce documentation of when you last tested?
- What was actually tested—a single file, a database, or full system recovery?
- How long did recovery take, and did it meet your stated objectives?
- What problems were encountered, and how were they addressed?
“How do you verify backup integrity?”
- Are checksums or verification runs performed automatically?
- Does anyone review verification results, or are they just logged somewhere?
- When did you last discover and address a backup corruption issue?
About Documentation and Procedures
“Walk me through exactly how you would recover from a complete server failure.”
- Who would be called, and how would they be reached?
- What are the specific steps, in order, to restore operations?
- Where is this documented, and who has access to the documentation?
- What if the person who normally handles this is unavailable?
“Show me your system inventory and recovery priorities.”
- What systems get restored first, and why?
- How do you know you’ve identified all critical systems?
- When was this inventory last updated?
About Infrastructure and Capability
“Where are your backups stored, and how quickly can you access them?”
- Are they on-site, off-site, or both?
- How long would it take to retrieve off-site backups?
- What’s your bandwidth for downloading cloud backups?
- Can backup systems be reached if your primary location is inaccessible?
“What infrastructure would you restore to if your existing systems were destroyed?”
- Do you have spare servers or virtual infrastructure ready?
- How long to procure and configure replacement systems?
- Is this capability documented and tested?
About Roles and Authority
“Who has the authority to declare a disaster and initiate recovery?”
- Is this clearly defined and documented?
- Are multiple people designated and aware of their role?
- What if the primary decision-maker is unavailable?
“Who can access backup systems and perform restoration?”
- How many people have credentials and knowledge?
- What happens if the IT person who manages backups is unavailable?
- Is this a single point of failure?
The Common Deficiencies Atlanta Companies Face
When auditors evaluate disaster recovery plans across Atlanta businesses, they consistently find similar gaps:
No Evidence of Testing
The plan exists but has never been tested beyond maybe restoring a single file. No one knows if full system recovery would actually work or how long it would take.
Outdated Documentation
The recovery procedures were written three years ago when the company used different systems. Nobody’s updated the plan to reflect current infrastructure, and following the documented procedures wouldn’t work.
Inadequate Off-Site Protection
Backups exist but they’re all on-site. If the building is inaccessible or damaged, backups are too. Auditors flag this as insufficient protection against site-wide disasters.
Unclear Responsibilities
The plan mentions roles like “IT Manager will coordinate recovery” but doesn’t specify who that is currently or what happens if they’re unavailable. No backup personnel are designated or trained.
Unverified Vendor Dependencies
The company believes their IT provider or backup vendor will handle recovery, but this hasn’t been verified through testing, and contractual obligations aren’t clearly documented.
Missing Critical Systems
The backup plan covers file servers but doesn’t address databases, email, cloud applications, or other critical systems. When auditors ask about these, companies realize they have gaps in coverage.
No Business Continuity Integration
The technical recovery plan exists in isolation without coordination with business continuity planning. How will operations continue during recovery? Who makes decisions about priorities? This isn’t addressed.
What Proper Data Backup & Recovery Atlanta Implementations Look Like
Companies that pass audits without findings aren’t just lucky—they’ve built and maintained proper recovery capabilities:
Regular Documented Testing
- Quarterly or at minimum annual disaster recovery tests
- Tests that include full system recovery, not just file restoration
- Documentation of test results, timelines, and issues encountered
- Action plans to address any gaps discovered during testing
Verified Backup Coverage
- Complete inventory of all systems requiring backup
- Verification that backup processes cover identified systems
- Regular integrity checking of backup data
- Test restores of critical data to verify recoverability
Layered Backup Strategy
- Local backups for quick recovery from minor issues
- Off-site backups (cloud or physical) for disaster scenarios
- Immutable or air-gapped backups that ransomware can’t reach
- Different backup technologies to avoid single points of failure
Clear Procedures and Responsibilities
- Documented step-by-step recovery procedures
- Named individuals (primary and backup) for each role
- Procedures that someone unfamiliar could follow successfully
- Contact information and credentials accessible during emergencies
Realistic RTOs and RPOs
- Recovery objectives based on tested performance, not aspirations
- Business-driven priorities for restoration sequence
- Acknowledgment of what can’t be recovered (acceptable data loss)
- Budget and resources aligned with recovery objectives
Business Continuity Integration
- Technical recovery coordinated with business operations plans
- Communication plans for employees, customers, and stakeholders
- Decision-making authority clearly defined for disaster scenarios
- Workarounds documented for operating during recovery
How to Prepare for an Audit (Or Just Get Your Recovery House in Order)
If you’re facing an audit or simply want to address these gaps proactively:
Conduct an honest assessment of your current recovery capabilities. Don’t ask the person who built your backup system—they’re biased. Get someone objective to evaluate whether it would actually work.
Perform a realistic recovery test. Not just restoring a single file, but simulating an actual disaster. Time how long it takes. Document what works and what doesn’t. Fix the gaps.
Update your documentation to reflect current systems, procedures, and personnel. If following your documented plan wouldn’t work, it’s not really a plan.
Verify your vendor relationships. If you’re relying on external providers for data backup & recovery Atlanta services, confirm exactly what they’ve contractually committed to providing and test it.
Address the easy wins first. Some gaps are expensive to fix; others just require documentation or procedural changes. Knock out the simple improvements while planning for larger investments.
Schedule regular verification. Recovery capability degrades over time as systems change. What works today might not work next year without ongoing maintenance and testing.
The Bottom Line
Auditors don’t care about your disaster recovery plan document. They care about whether you can actually recover from disasters. The document is just evidence—or lack thereof—of actual capability.
Most Atlanta companies have backup systems running and some kind of recovery plan documented. Far fewer have tested their recovery procedures, verified they work, and can demonstrate competency to an auditor.
The gap between these two states is where audit findings live. And those findings don’t just matter for passing audits—they predict whether your company would survive an actual disaster or become another cautionary tale about inadequate recovery preparation.
The time to discover your recovery plan doesn’t work is during a test, not during an emergency. Auditors are asking these hard questions because the answers reveal whether your company is actually protected or just pretending to be.