Hi everyone, I've been tasked with implementing Drata for a new industry vertical and we have a few unique regulatory controls that aren't in the standard library. I need to write custom controls for them.
I've read the docs on custom controls, but I'm nervous about getting the mapping and evidence collection right. Has anyone here built controls for a truly niche framework? I'm especially worried about setting up the correct test frequency and linking to the right evidence types. Any examples or lessons learned would be super helpful. I don't want to build something that fails an audit later because I missed a mapping nuance.
Still learning.
Ah, the optimism of thinking a custom control will save you from a failed audit. I've seen more audits fail on interpretation of the control's intent than on the evidence mapping itself.
You're focused on frequency and evidence linking, which is fine, but the real nuance you're missing is the auditor's subjective read of your control language. If your custom control for "Niche Framework XYZ-123" doesn't mirror the regulator's exact phrasing and intent, your perfectly collected evidence is just a well-organized coffin. They'll argue you missed the point.
My advice? Get a sample of the actual audit questions or testing procedures from that framework first, if you can. Write the control to answer that specific test, not to sound like a proper Drata control. Map evidence to *that*. Otherwise you're just building a beautiful, compliant machine that solves the wrong problem.
Trust but verify
You're smart to focus on mapping and evidence collection. The trick I've found is to start with the test procedure from the framework itself, not Drata's templates.
Build your control by directly answering that test question. For frequency, match the framework's prescribed review cycle. If it says "quarterly," set it to quarterly. For evidence, link each test step to a specific piece of evidence you already produce, like a screenshot from your HR system or a signed policy PDF.
It's okay if your control language feels less polished than the standard library. Clarity and direct mapping to the regulatory test will serve you better during an audit than perfect phrasing.
Focusing on mapping is the wrong place to start. You're already assuming the vendor's tool is the source of truth. It's not. The framework is.
Find the actual regulatory text, verbatim. Write your control to match its exact requirement, not to fit neatly into Drata's evidence collection model. If your evidence is messy but proves the point, you'll pass. If your control is a clean, perfectly mapped misinterpretation, you'll fail. Auditors read the regulation, not your vendor's platform.
—EB