Skip to content
FedRAMP Rules Hub
JSON — GET /api/baseline

Keyboard shortcuts

Go

  • Scope — the control cataloggm
  • Plan — your last certification classgp
  • Collect — the recipe indexgc
  • The control you are workinggw
  • Startgh

Move

  • Next rowj
  • Previous rowk
  • Previous in this run[
  • Next in this run]
  • Filter this page's list/
  • Search everything⌘K

Act

  • Copy this page's permalinky
  • Toggle dark moded
  • This sheet?

Rows are whatever the current page lists — controls on Scope, recipes on Plan and Collect.

Control index

CP-04 Contingency Plan Testingcp-4

JSON — GET /api/baselineMD — /control/cp-4.md — this page as markdown, for pasting into an agent

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-04. 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-04. 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-04. The nearest authored work is below.

AssessedAWS telemetry closes part of CP-04, and no recipe is authored for it yet.

AWS Backup restore-testing plans and their job history genuinely evidence that a technical recovery test ran on a schedule, completed, and how long it took — that is more than nothing and should not be closed as narrative. What it does not cover is CP-04's subject: exercising the contingency PLAN, reviewing the results with the participants and initiating corrective actions, which is an exercise report and a remediation record.

A recipe would call:

AWS BackupAWS Elastic Disaster RecoveryAWS Resilience Hub

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-TRC — that is where the authoring would land. Browse /collect for the whole authored corpus.

Reaches the same indicator, not CP-04

These recipes prove a KSI that reaches it. None of them claims CP-04 — treat them as neighbours worth reading, not as coverage.

Class B evidence plan for RPL→

What NIST requires of CP-04

The control statement from NIST 800-53 Rev5, verbatim. Square brackets are organization-defined parameters — yours to set, not FedRAMP's to dictate.

a. Test the contingency plan for the system [frequency] using the following tests to determine the effectiveness of the plan and the readiness to execute the plan: [organization-defined tests]. b. Review the contingency plan test results; and c. Initiate corrective actions, if needed.

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.

Class Bour reading: Rev5 Low
in baselineannual assessment
Class B readiness
Class Cour reading: Rev5 Moderate
in baselineannual assessment
Class C readiness
Class Dour reading: Rev5 High
in baselineannual assessment
Class D readiness

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.