CP-02 Contingency Plancp-2
Whether an AWS call fetches evidence for this control, and what to run. Its Rev5 baselines, the indicators that reach it and the FedRAMP guidance attached to it open below.
Nothing names itNo recipe names CP-02. 1 reach an indicator it shares, which is adjacency and not coverage — worth reading, not worth recording as evidence for this control.
Collect evidence (0)
Authored AWS recipes whose output is evidence for CP-02. This mapping is this project’s opinion (overlay v3.0.0), versioned separately from the dataset — the upstream FedRAMP rules name none of these tools.
No authored recipe names CP-02. The nearest authored work is below.
A contingency plan is a document: developed, distributed to named roles, coordinated with related plans, reviewed on a cycle and updated after changes. A 3PAO reads the plan, its distribution list and its revision history; no API reports that a plan exists or that anyone maintains it.
This project’s assessment (automation register v0.9.0, reviewed 2026-08-04), versioned separately from the dataset and from the evidence overlays. It is an opinion about the AWS surface on that date, and the surface moves.
The KSI that reaches it is KSI-RPL-ARP — which is what asks for it. The evidence it asks for is written, not fetched. Browse /collect for the whole authored corpus.
Reaches the same indicator, not CP-02
These recipes prove a KSI that reaches it. None of them claims CP-02 — treat them as neighbours worth reading, not as coverage.
What NIST requires of CP-02
The control statement from NIST 800-53 Rev5, verbatim. Square brackets are organization-defined parameters — yours to set, not FedRAMP's to dictate.
a. Develop a contingency plan for the system that: 1. Identifies essential mission and business functions and associated contingency requirements; 2. Provides recovery objectives, restoration priorities, and metrics; 3. Addresses contingency roles, responsibilities, assigned individuals with contact information; 4. Addresses maintaining essential mission and business functions despite a system disruption, compromise, or failure; 5. Addresses eventual, full system restoration without deterioration of the controls originally planned and implemented; 6. Addresses the sharing of contingency information; and 7. Is reviewed and approved by [organization-defined personnel or roles]; b. Distribute copies of the contingency plan to [organization-defined key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) and organizational elements]; c. Coordinate contingency planning activities with incident handling activities; d. Review the contingency plan for the system [frequency]; e. Update the contingency plan to address changes to the organization, system, or environment of operation and problems encountered during contingency plan implementation, execution, or testing; f. Communicate contingency plan changes to [organization-defined key contingency personnel (identified by name and/or by role) and organizational elements]; g. Incorporate lessons learned from contingency plan testing, training, or actual contingency activities into contingency testing and training; and h. Protect the contingency plan from unauthorized disclosure and modification.
NIST SP 800-53 Rev5 catalog 5.2.0, from usnistgov/oscal-content at 78650f0. The FedRAMP dataset carries no control text; this is borrowed and pinned.
Rev5 baseline membership
Membership is the whole relationship — a baseline is a set of control ids. Class A carries no baseline at all. The Low/Moderate/High labels are an interpretation from control counts, not a dataset fact.
KSI indicators reaching this control (1)
Under 20x, these indicators are how this control is demonstrated — automated KSI evidence stands in for narrative control evidence.
Pages exist for the 209 controls reached by at least one KSI. Baseline-only controls are the orphans on /coverage. Control titles and full text live in the NIST catalog, not this dataset.