Control Coverage Context
Relevant controls stay connected to applications, dependencies, and owners automatically. Coverage context stays current as systems and teams change.
Audit readiness without the scramble. Continuous control confidence.
Your teams track controls, evidence, and service risk in different places. DevGrid gives security, engineering, and risk one live readiness view so you stay audit-ready continuously, not just when the auditors are coming.
Single
readiness view across engineering and risk
Zero
evidence-hunt fire drills
24/7
readiness updated from live signals
Controls live in one system. Evidence lives somewhere else.
Risk teams manage policy in GRC tools. Engineering evidence sits in delivery and security tooling. Audit prep becomes a manual hunt across systems. Without one live readiness graph, teams spend cycles assembling proof instead of reducing exposure.
Here's how DevGrid fixes that
Evidence Context for Applications
Surface evidence alongside the applications and controls it relates to so audit conversations are easier and status stays current.
Readiness Gap Alerts
Continuously detect control drift and surface the highest-risk gaps before they become audit findings.
Executive Readiness Views
See readiness trends by portfolio, team, and application to prioritize remediation and report to the board with confidence.
Four roles. One compliance truth.
Each role works from the same live readiness graph and gets the exact context needed to act.
Technology Executive
Sees: Organization-wide readiness posture, control gaps, and trend lines across critical services.
Decides: Where to prioritize investment and executive oversight to reduce compliance exposure.
Technology Manager
Sees: Team-level control coverage, ownership gaps, and remediation blockers tied to service delivery.
Decides: Which workstreams need immediate action to close readiness gaps this quarter.
Risk Manager
Sees: Policy-to-control coverage, evidence completeness, and emerging control drift in real time.
Decides: Where to escalate risk, enforce controls, and focus audit-prep effort.
Engineer
Sees: Service-specific compliance obligations, missing evidence, and control failures in workflow context.
Decides: What to remediate next to restore control coverage and reduce audit risk.