AUSTRALIA · APRA · EFFECTIVE 1 JULY 2025
CPS 230 requires regulated entities to manage operational risk, maintain critical operations within tolerance through disruptions, and effectively manage the risks of material service provider arrangements. This guide explains the requirement, scope, timeline and evidence mapping for software escrow and Software Recoverability.
REGULATORY EVIDENCE MAP
APRA CPS 230
PERIMETER
Australia
REQUIREMENT
Ability to continue critical operations within tolerance levels during disruption
CASTLER EVIDENCE
Recoverability of vendor-built critical systems is proven, not assumed
OUTPUT
Signed Proof of Recovery
APRA CPS 230 — operational risk and material service-provider requirements
In force from 1 July 2025Who it applies to
The standard is applicable. Boards and accountable executives should maintain current service-provider registers, continuity controls, tolerances and testing evidence.
What the regulation requires
The Castler artefact that evidences it
Ability to continue critical operations within tolerance levels during disruption
Recoverability of vendor-built critical systems is proven, not assumed
Robust management of material service provider arrangements
A signed Proof of Recovery evidences continuity within your defined tolerance levels
Credible plans to respond to the failure or exit of a provider
Provider-failure plans are backed by demonstrated, on-demand recovery
Board oversight of operational resilience
Per-release seals give the board current operational-resilience evidence
THE GLOBAL REGULATORY MANDATE
Across financial regulation, cyber-resilience rules and global assurance standards, the direction is converging: critical third-party software must remain current, testable and recoverable when its provider fails.
17
MANDATES
9
JURISDICTIONS
1 · WHAT THE REGULATION IS
APRA CPS 230 is the Australian prudential standard for operational risk management. It took effect on 1 July 2025 for APRA-regulated entities.
CPS 230 requires regulated entities to manage operational risk, maintain critical operations within tolerance through disruptions, and effectively manage the risks of material service provider arrangements. For a CIO, CISO or compliance officer, the practical issue is whether a critical third-party application can remain available when the provider fails, exits, is acquired or can no longer support the product.
Software escrow addresses custody: who holds the source code, build materials and documentation. Software Recoverability addresses the next question: whether those materials have been independently rebuilt, deployed and tested. The distinction matters because an agreement and a deposit do not prove that recovery can be completed within the institution’s operational tolerance.
Castler therefore treats the requirement as part of vendor onboarding. The agreement and first deposit are established when the relationship begins, every release is captured, and the verification evidence is renewed before an auditor, insurer or supervisor asks for it.
2 · EXACT REQUIREMENT
In summary
An APRA-regulated entity must maintain critical operations within tolerance through disruption and manage the operational risks associated with material service providers, including credible continuity and exit arrangements.
Reference: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority — CPS 230 Operational Risk Management. For legal interpretation and exact operative wording, use the current official text and advice applicable to your supervisory perimeter.
In practical terms, compliance requires more than a clause in the vendor contract. The institution must identify which applications are critical, establish custody or source-code access, ensure the deposited materials remain current, document release conditions and maintain evidence that continuity or exit can be executed.
Where the framework requires tested recovery, resilience or credible exit, a stored deposit is only the starting control. Independent build evidence, deployment instructions, architecture replication and a signed engineer review show that the recovery path has been exercised rather than assumed.
Authorised deposit-taking institutions
General, life and private health insurers
Registrable superannuation entity licensees
Material service providers supporting critical operations
The accountable group normally includes technology, information security, outsourcing, procurement, compliance, business continuity and the business owner of the supported service. Scope should be based on criticality, not only contract value.
In force from 1 July 2025
The standard is applicable. Boards and accountable executives should maintain current service-provider registers, continuity controls, tolerances and testing evidence.
Institutions should work backwards from the operative date. Vendor identification, agreement execution, repository integration, initial deposit, reconciliation and first verification all require lead time. Onboarding-first implementation avoids a deadline-driven retrofit.
5 · CONSEQUENCES
APRA may require remediation, changes to service-provider arrangements, stronger controls or additional assurance where critical-operation tolerances and provider-failure plans are not credible.
The operational consequence can be more severe than the supervisory consequence. If a critical provider fails and the deposited software cannot be built or deployed, the institution may breach customer commitments, impact tolerances, market obligations and board-approved continuity objectives while the technical team reconstructs undocumented knowledge under incident conditions.
A current custody record and signed Proof of Recovery reduce that uncertainty. They do not replace legal analysis, incident planning or the institution’s own controls; they create tested technical evidence that those controls rely on.
6 · CASTLER EVIDENCE MAPPING
The mapping is specific: each obligation is paired with the Castler artefact or operating control that provides relevant evidence. It is not a claim that software alone guarantees compliance.
| Regulatory requirement | Castler evidence |
|---|---|
| Ability to continue critical operations within tolerance levels during disruption | Recoverability of vendor-built critical systems is proven, not assumed |
| Robust management of material service provider arrangements | A signed Proof of Recovery evidences continuity within your defined tolerance levels |
| Credible plans to respond to the failure or exit of a provider | Provider-failure plans are backed by demonstrated, on-demand recovery |
| Board oversight of operational resilience | Per-release seals give the board current operational-resilience evidence |
Cloud Custody
Establish the software escrow agreement, current deposit, release history and audit trail required as the custody foundation.
Explore custody →Software Recoverability
Add independent rebuild, deployment, replication, confidence scoring and an engineer-sealed Proof of Recovery.
Explore Proof of Recovery →7 · FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS
An agreement can satisfy the contractual custody element, but APRA CPS 230 also expects the institution to manage continuity, third-party risk or recovery evidence. The exact answer depends on the clause and supervisory perimeter.
The deposit should track the production release. Automated repository capture, version history and release identifiers make it possible to show that updates and fixes are included rather than relying on the original filing.
The vendor participates in onboarding, deposit setup and structured reconciliation where documentation is missing. Verification is then designed to run independently so the vendor does not need to be present every time.
Present the executed escrow arrangement, deposit and release history, build report, deployment runbook, replication report, SBOM, confidence score, exception record and signed Proof of Recovery for the release in scope.
Yes. Cloud Custody establishes the current deposit and agreement. The same record can be upgraded to Standard or Premium Software Recoverability without creating a new custody foundation.
Re-test when the vendor releases a material version and according to the institution’s criticality, regulatory and board-approved assurance cycle. Per-release verification avoids stale annual evidence.
8 · RELATED REGULATIONS
European Union
EU DORA
DORA requires financial entities to keep ICT third-party risk under control across the full lifecycle of a contract — including a documented exit strategy and assurance that a critical or important function can continue if a provider fails (Article 28).
Read the mappingIndia
RBI §12(f)
RBI's directions on outsourcing of IT services require regulated entities to maintain robust exit strategies and business-continuity arrangements so critical operations survive a service provider's exit or failure.
Read the mappingThis guide is for regulatory orientation and does not constitute legal advice. Verify obligations against current official texts and professional advice for your entity.
APRA CPS 230
Bring your APRA CPS 230 perimeter. We’ll map the critical systems, current custody and Proof of Recovery evidence required for a defensible procedure.
Book a 15-min briefing