Top Findings From CMMC Readiness Assessments in 2026 (So Far)

Readiness assessments are useful for the organization being assessed. Looked at collectively, they’re useful for everyone, because the same gaps keep appearing across companies that have nothing else in common.

That’s the value of a mid-year look back. If you’re a DoD contractor preparing for CMMC Level 2 certification, the issues most likely to slow you down aren’t unique to your environment. They’re the same ones we see across manufacturers and suppliers throughout the defense industrial base, year after year and engagement after engagement.

The findings below reflect patterns our team has observed across CMMC readiness assessments conducted this year. They aren’t drawn from published survey data, they’re what shows up repeatedly when you look closely at how organizations have actually implemented their programs. Knowing them in advance gives you the chance to address them on your own timeline, rather than an assessor’s.

The Most Common CMMC Readiness Assessment Findings

Incomplete or Outdated SSP Documentation

The System Security Plan (SSP) is the document assessors spend the most time with, and it’s where we find problems most often. Not because organizations neglect it, but because it’s written once and then left behind as the environment moves on.

We regularly find SSPs that describe systems that have been replaced, reference network architecture from before an infrastructure change, or omit cloud platforms adopted after the document was drafted. The plan reads well. It just doesn’t describe the organization anymore.

Missing or Insufficient Audit Evidence

This is the gap that surprises organizations most. The controls are genuinely implemented, the work has genuinely been done, and yet there’s no evidence to prove it.

Evidence collection tends to be treated as something to assemble before an assessment rather than something to capture continuously. When we ask a team to produce proof that a specific control operated over the past twelve months, the search often turns up scattered screenshots, incomplete logs, and gaps where documentation simply doesn’t exist. Under CMMC, an unprovable control is functionally an unimplemented one.

Weak Incident Response Testing

Nearly every organization we assess has an incident response plan. Far fewer have tested one.

The plan exists as a document, roles are named on paper, and escalation paths are written down. But when we ask when the plan was last exercised, the answer is frequently “never” or “when we wrote it.” Untested plans tend to fall apart under pressure, and assessors know it, which is why evidence of testing is something they actively look for.

Gaps in Logging, Monitoring, and Alert Management

Logging problems show up in three recurring forms: 

  • Systems in the CUI environment that aren’t feeding logs anywhere. 
  • Logs that capture activity but not the event types the controls require. 
  • Alerts that generate faithfully into a dashboard nobody reviews.


The third is the most common. Detection technology is in place and working, but there’s no documented triage process, no defined ownership, and no record showing that anyone looked. The capability exists; the operational discipline around it doesn’t.

Incomplete Endpoint Protection Coverage

Endpoint coverage gaps rarely come from a decision to leave systems unprotected. They come from systems nobody remembered, such as legacy servers, machines used by contractors, devices added outside the standard provisioning process, or equipment that predates the current security stack.

These systems sit inside the assessment boundary while operating outside the protections applied everywhere else.

Unresolved POA&M Items

A Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M) is meant to be a working document. In practice, we often find POA&Ms that haven’t been updated in months, with items that have no owner, no target date, or a target date that passed long ago.

An open POA&M item isn’t automatically a problem. A stalled one is, because it signals that remediation has lost momentum, and assessors read it exactly that way.

Poor Documentation of Policies and Procedures

Policies frequently exist in a generic form, downloaded from a template library, lightly edited, and never reconciled with how the organization actually works. The document says one thing; the daily practice says another.

Assessors interview staff. When what people describe doesn’t match what the policy states, that discrepancy becomes a finding.

No Clear Ownership of Ongoing Compliance

The most structural finding of all: Nobody owns it. Compliance activities are spread informally across IT, operations, and leadership, with no single person accountable for making sure recurring tasks actually happen on schedule.

Without ownership, everything else on this list becomes more likely.

Why These Findings Matter

Individually, none of these are catastrophic. Collectively, they’re what turns a straightforward certification into a delayed, expensive one.

Findings discovered during a formal assessment cost far more to fix than findings discovered in advance. Remediation under assessment pressure means rushed work, unplanned spending, and sometimes rescheduling with a C3PAO, which given current lead times can push certification months past your target. For contractors with contracts contingent on certification, that delay carries real revenue consequences.

The common thread running through nearly every finding above is the gap between documentation and operation. Organizations invest heavily in writing the program and comparatively little in running it. CMMC assesses both, and operational evidence is what assessors weigh most heavily.

Practical Recommendations

The good news is that every finding on this list is preventable with consistent attention.

Run Internal Readiness Assessments Regularly

Don’t wait until you think you’re ready. Periodic self-assessment surfaces drift while it’s still small.

Collect Evidence Continuously

Build evidence capture into your recurring processes rather than treating it as pre-assessment preparation. If it isn’t

Update Your SSP and Documentation on a Schedule

Tie documentation review to system changes, personnel changes, and a fixed annual cadence.

Validate Technical Controls, Don’t Assume Them

Confirm that logging captures the right events, that alerts reach a person, and that endpoint coverage extends to every system in scope.

Run Tabletop Exercises

Test your incident response plan at least annually and document what the exercise revealed.

Keep POA&Ms Moving

Assign an owner and a realistic date to every open item, and review progress monthly.

Assign Clear Ownership

Someone needs to be accountable for recurring compliance activities. Without that, the rest of this list erodes over time.

How DataSure24 Helps

Our team works with defense contractors and manufacturers to identify these gaps before an assessor does. Through our CMMC Services and Security & Risk Assessments, we deliver readiness assessments, gap analysis, and practical compliance roadmaps built around your actual environment and timeline.

Because our team includes CCAs, Lead CCAs, and a Provisional Instructor who trains CMMC assessors, we evaluate your program the way an assessor will, and tell you what we find while there’s still time to act on it.

Find Your Gaps Before an Assessor Does

The organizations that certify smoothly aren’t the ones without findings. They’re the ones who found their issues early and worked through them on a timeline they controlled.

If you’re heading toward a formal CMMC assessment, a readiness review is the most direct way to know where you stand. Schedule a time to talk with our team at datasure24.com.