Appearance
Historical Reconstruction
"What did your compliance position look like at the end of March, and on what basis?"
For most organisations that question is answered by finding an exported spreadsheet and hoping. In OrviQ it is a parameter.
Two mechanisms
OrviQ preserves the past in two different ways, and knowing which applies matters.
| Reconstruction | Immutable snapshot | |
|---|---|---|
| How | Computed from effective-dated records | Frozen at a governance moment |
| Answers | "What was the position on this date?" | "What exactly was approved or submitted?" |
| Available for | Any date | The moments a snapshot was taken |
| Where | Scope, mappings, applicability, assurance, SoA | Audit finalisation, inspection submission, incident closure, BIA, plan and exercise approval |
Reconstruction is a query. A snapshot is a record.
What reconstructs
| Object | How |
|---|---|
| Scope membership | Members are effective-dated; a subject is in scope at instant T when valid_from is at or before T and valid_until is unset or after T |
| Crosswalk mappings | Each version carries a validity window; adjustments retire the prior version and open a new one |
| Applicability decisions | Applicability history rewinds to the state approved at that instant |
| Indicator results | Immutable; the latest result at or before the instant is used |
| Evidence assertions | Superseded assertions are retained, so the observation current at that instant is available |
| Exceptions | Effective only within their validity window |
| Requirement assurance | Derived from all of the above as of the instant |
| Statement of Applicability | Derived, with a historical flag and the as-of timestamp |
| TPRM assessments | Insert-only; every determination, classification and assessment is superseded, never overwritten |
| Risk snapshots | Append-only |
What freezes
| Moment | Snapshot contains |
|---|---|
| Audit finalisation | Scope, procedures, test results, workpapers, findings, opinion and sign-off |
| Inspection submission | The exact response package as submitted |
| Incident closure | Loss ledger, impact, reportability, investigation, root cause and sign-off metadata |
| BIA approval | Objectives, impacts, dependencies and reviewer identity |
| Plan approval | Procedures, teams, activation criteria and reviewer |
| Exercise sign-off | Targets, actuals, observations, participants and reviewer |
| Requirement assurance review | The posture at review |
Snapshots exist where a representation was made — to a regulator, to an audit committee, to a board. What was said then must not change because the live record moved on.
The honesty constraints
Reconstruction is only as truthful as the records allow, and OrviQ is explicit where it cannot be certain.
It does not backdate evidence
Reconstructing March shows March's evidence. If a control was mapped in March but had no evidence until June, the March reconstruction shows the mapping and the absence of evidence.
A historical view will sometimes look worse than you remember
That is usually the point. If your March position genuinely had gaps, a reconstruction that hides them is worse than useless — it is the thing that gets discovered during fieldwork.
It reflects records, not intentions
A decision agreed in a February meeting and recorded in April reconstructs as April. The remedy is recording decisions when they are made.
It surfaces incomplete records rather than filling them
A mapping retired with no end date displays as "Ended, date not recorded" rather than being given a plausible one. It cannot be honestly placed on a timeline, and showing the gap is better than fabricating a date.
The same discipline applies throughout: a TPRM engagement with no review date reports none, never a derived date.
It covers the period the records cover
Reconstruction begins when records began in the platform. Earlier periods are outside the record.
How to answer a point-in-time question
- Establish the exact instant. "Q1" is ambiguous; a date is not.
- Reconstruct the scope as of that date, so the population is right.
- Reconstruct the crosswalk as of the same date.
- Produce the Statement of Applicability with the same as-of date.
- Derive requirement assurance as of the same date where the question is about compliance position.
- Check for a relevant snapshot. If the question is about what was submitted or approved, the snapshot is the better answer than a reconstruction.
Using one instant throughout is what makes the package internally consistent.
Permissions
Reconstruction respects the same permissions as live views. You can reconstruct what you could see.
| Action | Permission |
|---|---|
| Scope reconstruction | scope.read |
| Crosswalk as-of views | mapping.read |
| Historical SoA | compliance.read |
| Assurance posture history | assurance.read |
| Export a reconstructed dataset | export.data, plus mapping.export for crosswalk |
Example
A certification body's surveillance visit in November, asking about the March certification.
| Question | Answer produced |
|---|---|
| What was in scope in March? | Scope reconstruction: 63 members, composition listed |
| Which controls addressed clause A.8.5? | Crosswalk as of March: two approved mappings, one since retired |
| What did the SoA say? | Historical SoA: 93 obligations, 81 applicable, 12 excluded, with justifications and approvers as they stood |
| What was the assurance position? | Assurance as of March: satisfaction, coverage and evidence status per obligation |
Why did CTL-2026-0033 stop addressing A.8.5? | Its retirement record: "Control decommissioned on migration to the new session broker. Obligation now addressed by CTL-2026-0088, approved 14 June" |
The difference between March and November: 187 approved mappings then, 194 now; 14 retired, 21 added.
That is not a discrepancy — it is a change record, and it is precisely what a surveillance visit exists to examine. Every retirement carries a date and a reason; every addition carries a proposer, a reviewer and an approval date.
Troubleshooting
"A historical view shows fewer records than expected." Records created after the as-of date are correctly excluded.
"The reconstruction disagrees with a saved export." The saved export was a point-in-time file that has drifted, or was produced with different filters. The reconstruction derives from the records.
"A snapshot differs from the live record." That is its purpose. The live record has moved on.
"I need a period before we adopted OrviQ." Outside the record.