HITRUST CCSFP Certified CSF Practitioner 2025 Exam Exam Practice Test

In HITRUST MyCSF, inheritance allows organizations to leverage control implementations from other entities or internal departments to reduce redundancy and streamline assessments.

Cross Organizational inheritance → Accepted, allows borrowing controls from a trusted external organization (e.g., cloud provider).

Internal inheritance → Accepted, allows reuse of controls across internal business units or shared services.

External inheritance → Accepted, typically when outsourcing to a vendor that provides evidence.

Bi-lateral inheritance → Not recognized by HITRUST, as inheritance flows one way only (from provider to relying party).

Extract Reference (HITRUST MyCSF User Guide, CCSFP Program Objectives):

Appropriate inheritance types include cross organizational, internal, and external. Bi-lateral inheritance is not supported in MyCSF, as inheritance is directional and validated only from provider to consumer.

The HITRUST CSF is not intended to replace existing regulatory frameworks such as HIPAA or security standards like NIST 800-53. Instead, the CSF harmonizes and integrates requirements from these and other authoritative sources into a single certifiable framework. For example, HIPAA Security Rule provisions and NIST 800-53 controls are mapped into the CSF domains and requirement statements. This enables organizations to demonstrate compliance with multiple frameworks through one assessment. However, the CSF does not eliminate or supersede the original obligations. Covered entities must still comply with HIPAA, and federal contractors may still need to align with NIST standards directly. The CSF serves as a consolidated implementation tool, not a legal or regulatory replacement.

Only in r2 assessments can organizations carve out third-party controls as not applicable if the responsibility lies entirely with a third party (e.g., inherited from a cloud provider).

In e1 and i1 assessments, carve-outs are not allowed because they are standardized, prescriptive frameworks.

Interim assessments are continuations of r2 certifications and do not allow carve-outs beyond the initial scope.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Inheritance and Scoping Guidance [0116]):

Third-party carve-outs as N/A are only permitted in r2 assessments, as i1 and e1 follow prescriptive control sets.

For the Measured domain, evidence must exist that controls are being evaluated for effectiveness.

Without documentation, a control cannot be measured, as there is no evidence of monitoring or review activity.

Documentation is the basis for determining repeatability, maturity, and strength in the scoring model.

Extract Reference (HITRUST Scoring Methodology [0126]):

If a control is undocumented, it cannot be evaluated in the Measured domain, as measurement requires documentation of monitoring.

The scoring model in HITRUST is hierarchical. Each Requirement Statement is scored individually across maturity levels (Policy, Procedure, Implemented, Measured, Managed). These scores roll up into Control References, which represent collections of related requirement statements. The average of Control References within a domain determines the Domain Score. Finally, domain scores are used to evaluate whether certification thresholds are met (e.g., minimum domain score of 71 for r2 certification). This hierarchical averaging ensures that deficiencies in individual requirements are reflected in higher-level scores, promoting balance across all controls within a domain.

In an i1 assessment, remediated controls must demonstrate sustained effectiveness before being retested. HITRUST requires a minimum of 90 days between remediation and reconsideration of the Implemented maturity level. This waiting period ensures that corrective actions are not only implemented but also consistently applied over time. For example, if patch management processes were deficient and then corrected, HITRUST wants to see proof that the new process has been followed successfully across multiple cycles. Immediate or short-term remediation is insufficient, as it may not show durability. This rule reinforces HITRUST’s focus on operational maturity and real-world assurance, preventing organizations from implementing “point-in-time fixes” just to pass assessments.

When relying on third-party reports (such as SOC 2 reports) to satisfy HITRUST requirements, only reports with sufficient detail can be used. HITRUST requires:

A clear description of scope (A) to confirm applicability to the assessed environment.

A list of procedures performed (C) so assessors can evaluate whether testing covered relevant controls.

Conclusions reached for each test (E) to provide assurance about the effectiveness of tested controls.

While an executive summary may be helpful for context, it lacks sufficient detail to serve as valid reliance evidence. Similarly, “completed remediation” of exceptions (B) is not required; rather, the report must document exceptions transparently. Assessors remain responsible for verifying that reliance reports are current, relevant, and issued by qualified independent auditors.

HITRUST requires External Assessors to reserve QA slots prior to submitting validated assessments. This ensures QA capacity is available and assessments are reviewed in a timely manner. However, the guidance does not specify a strict six-month minimum reservation period. Instead, HITRUST recommends assessors reserve QA slots well in advance of their submission target date, based on the anticipated complexity and workload. In practice, reservations may often be made months in advance, but there is no formal rule mandating six months. The flexibility allows assessors to adjust their schedules while ensuring HITRUST can properly plan QA resources. As such, the statement that reservations must always be made six months ahead is False.

In HITRUST, scoring follows a hierarchical roll-up process. At the lowest level, Requirement Statements are scored across the five maturity levels: Policy, Procedure, Implemented, Measured, and Managed. These individual requirement scores are then aggregated to produce the Control Reference score. Control Reference scores are averaged to determine the Domain score, and finally, domain scores are used to determine whether certification thresholds are met. Each level of scoring influences the next, meaning deficiencies at the Requirement Statement level impact the higher-level domain performance. This structure ensures that assessments provide a balanced and transparent picture of organizational control effectiveness. No single requirement is hidden; its performance is reflected in the domain-level scoring. Since r2 certifications require each of the 19 domains to score at least 71, accuracy in Requirement Statement scoring is critical.

HITRUST certifications apply to implemented systems and environments, not products, individuals, or facilities. For example, a healthcare provider may certify its electronic health record (EHR) platform, data center, and IT operations supporting PHI. HITRUST does not certify products like software applications sold to customers; instead, it certifies how organizations implement and operate them securely. Similarly, while HITRUST offers professional credentials like CCSFP or CHQP for people, these are certifications of knowledge, not organizational assurance. Facilities are included in assessments as scoping components but are not independently certified. The certification is always tied to an organization’s operational environment as validated through a CSF assessment.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

HITRUST permits organizations to select from active versions of the CSF framework. While using the most current version is recommended, it is not mandatory. Companies may choose the version that best aligns with their compliance timelines, regulatory obligations, or contractual requirements.

The tool does not automatically select the version.

The assessor does not choose the version—the organization makes this decision.

Selecting any active version gives flexibility while maintaining recognized assurance validity.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF v11 Guidance, CCSFP Study Guide [0163]):

Organizations may use any active version of the HITRUST CSF for their assessment. While it is encouraged to adopt the most recent version, HITRUST allows organizations to choose the version that best meets their needs

If management decides to add new systems mid-assessment, the assessor must ensure the assessment scope and related requirement statements reflect the change. In MyCSF, this means two actions: first, reverting all completed Requirement Statements so that the client can review and adjust responses for any new control impacts. Second, the assessor must update the “Scope of the Assessment” tab to include the new systems. This ensures that MyCSF recalculates applicable requirements based on the expanded scope. Removing authoritative sources or requesting a Bridge Certificate would not address this situation, as authoritative sources are regulatory mappings and bridge certificates are only used to extend certifications temporarily.

For Policy and Procedure maturity levels, HITRUST requires a minimum of 30 days between creation or updates and reconsideration for testing in an r2 assessment. This ensures that the policies and procedures are not just newly drafted but have been approved, communicated, and adopted within the organization. Thirty days allows time for staff awareness, training, and initial application, which HITRUST views as necessary evidence of operationalization. Unlike Implementation maturity (which requires 90 days of operational evidence for reconsideration), documentation-based maturity levels require a shorter validation window. This distinction reflects the difference between proving written governance documents exist versus proving operational controls function consistently.

For an r2 Certification:

Certification is valid for two years, but an Interim Assessment must be performed at the 12-month mark to maintain certification status.

This ensures continuous compliance, validation of CAP progress, and confirmation of no significant scope changes.

Extract Reference (HITRUST Assurance Program, CCSFP Guide [0023]):

Interim Assessments are required 12 months after r2 certification to maintain certification validity for the second year.

For r2 Validated Assessments, certification requires meeting HITRUST’s minimum scoring thresholds across all applicable areas (commonly ≥62.5%). If any domain (or required control reference/requirement) falls below the threshold (e.g., <61 or <62.5 as applicable), the assessment cannot be certified and will be issued as a Validated Report without Certification.

“If any required scoring area is below the minimum threshold, the outcome is a Validated Report without Certification until deficiencies are remediated.” [HITRUST CSF Assurance Program – Certification Criteria, 0142]

When scoring Measured and Managed maturity levels in HITRUST, evidence requirements are more rigorous. If these levels are scored above 50%, organizations must demonstrate that formal processes exist to measure control performance, that reports are generated to monitor effectiveness, and that accountability for measurement and management is assigned. Specifically:

Processes show how control gaps are tracked, risks mitigated, and remediation addressed.

Reports provide tangible outputs proving monitoring activities (e.g., audit logs, vulnerability reports).

Responsible individuals must be identified to show governance and ownership of measurement functions.

Organizational scoping factors, while important for tailoring requirements, do not serve as evidence of maturity scoring. HITRUST’s QA team requires this documentation to confirm that high maturity levels are not claimed without demonstrable evidence of ongoing monitoring and governance.

In MyCSF, organizational performance dashboards are available under the Analytics tab. This section provides interactive reporting features, including trend charts, compliance scores, domain comparisons, CAP summaries, and benchmarking across multiple assessment objects. Unlike the Reference Library or Administration tab, which are used for framework access and account management, the Analytics tab focuses on reporting and visualization. It allows management and assessors to monitor both single-assessment results and enterprise-wide metrics. Importantly, dashboards are not restricted to certified reports; they are a built-in feature of MyCSF, accessible during preparation, readiness, and validated assessments. This makes the Analytics tab essential for organizations using HITRUST as an ongoing governance and risk management tool.

When testing implementation, the population must include the full set of in-scope assets, not just a subset filtered by existing controls.

AV console (A) → only shows devices with AV installed; it would exclude noncompliant assets.

IT asset inventory (C) → provides the complete list of laptops, making it the proper source for random sample selection.

Risk register (D) → lists risks, not devices.

Capital assets only (B) → not comprehensive for all laptops.

Extract Reference (HITRUST Assessment Sampling Guidance, CCSFP [0173]):

Sampling must be based on the complete population from the IT asset inventory; reliance on control-based systems (e.g., AV console) introduces bias.

The Readiness Assessment is designed to give organizations flexibility when evaluating their security and compliance posture. Unlike validated assessments, which are bound by specific methodologies, thresholds, and QA requirements, the readiness format allows entities to scope assessments more freely. This includes the ability to select any HITRUST authoritative source, such as HIPAA, PCI-DSS, NIST, ISO, or GDPR, for self-assessment purposes. The readiness option is often used for gap analysis, remediation planning, and preparing for a future validated assessment. Since the results are not submitted to HITRUST QA, organizations can tailor the assessment to their needs without external restrictions. Neither e1, i1, nor r2 assessments provide this level of flexibility, as those validated assessments are standardized and tightly controlled.

For r2 certifications, HITRUST requires an interim assessment at the one-year mark to ensure ongoing compliance. The MyCSF platform automatically generates the interim assessment object 90 days prior to the certification anniversary date. This gives organizations and assessors adequate time to prepare, perform testing, and submit the interim assessment before the deadline. The auto-creation ensures that no certified entity misses the requirement, as failure to complete the interim would result in certification lapse. The 90-day window balances preparation time with the need for timeliness, ensuring continuous assurance between the initial validated assessment and the two-year certification cycle.

The HITRUST CSF is designed to apply comprehensively across all transmission and storage methods for sensitive information. This includes:

Electronic transmission (e.g., email, secure messaging, EDI).

Physical storage and transfer (e.g., paper records, removable media).

Cloud storage and hosted environments.

Internal system storage (databases, file servers, applications).

By ensuring coverage across all methods, HITRUST aligns with regulatory expectations such as HIPAA, GDPR, and PCI-DSS, which emphasize protecting data in motion, at rest, and in use. Organizations must implement technical, administrative, and physical controls to ensure that sensitive data is safeguarded regardless of its format or method of handling. This broad applicability makes the CSF a flexible framework capable of addressing modern hybrid IT and physical environments.

The Certified CSF Practitioner (CCSFP) designation, awarded through HITRUST Academy, is valid for two years from the date of certification. During this period, practitioners are recognized as trained professionals qualified to assist organizations in implementing, preparing for, and supporting HITRUST CSF assessments. Unlike certifications in some other frameworks, CCSFP does not require annual refresher training for continued validity. After the two-year period, practitioners must renew their certification, typically by retaking the CCSFP course or completing updated training to ensure knowledge of the latest HITRUST CSF version and Assurance Program changes. The two-year cycle aligns with HITRUST’s update cadence, ensuring practitioners remain current with evolving regulatory mappings, control requirements, and scoring methodology.

The A1 Security Assessment factor is an optional module that introduces requirements for evaluating the security and governance of AI-based systems. These requirements are mapped into HITRUST CSF across domains like risk management, monitoring, and governance. Importantly, the A1 factor is not restricted solely to r2 assessments. While r2 provides the most comprehensive assurance model, A1 can also be added to other eligible assessment types such as i1 when the scope involves AI risks. The factor is treated like any other regulatory or organizational factor in MyCSF—its selection generates additional tailored requirement statements. Therefore, the claim that A1 can only be added to r2 is inaccurate. The correct understanding is that A1 can apply to multiple assessment types, depending on scoping decisions.

The e1 assessment focuses on essential cybersecurity hygiene controls. To achieve certification, the Implemented maturity level must demonstrate full (100%) compliance for each requirement statement. Partial implementation (such as 50%) indicates that the control is not consistently applied or lacks complete coverage across systems and users. HITRUST emphasizes the Implemented level in e1 because it represents proof that foundational safeguards are actively functioning. Scoring 50% would fall into the “Partially Compliant” category, which is insufficient for certification. Even if policies and procedures exist, HITRUST requires controls to be fully implemented for an e1 certification outcome. This strict requirement helps ensure that entities with lower assurance models still achieve a baseline of strong operational security.

In an i1 assessment, scoring follows a pass/fail logic tied to CAP requirements. If a Control Reference scores below the defined threshold (typically 83 for i1 assessments), any gaps within its requirement statements must be addressed with a required Corrective Action Plan (CAP). A score of 62 is below the threshold, meaning it cannot be accepted without remediation. This ensures organizations remediate key cybersecurity hygiene gaps, even in a moderate assurance assessment. Optional CAPs are not used in i1 assessments, as the assurance program emphasizes mandatory remediation for below-threshold controls. Certification cannot be granted with unresolved required CAPs. Therefore, the correct outcome for a score of 62 in an i1 Control Reference is a required CAP.

Scoping an assessment involves identifying regulatory factors that apply to an organization’s operations. In this case, the entity is a pharmacy that accepts Medicare/Medicaid and processes credit cards. Medicare/Medicaid participation introduces obligations under CMS Minimum Security Requirements (High), which adds federal requirements specific to healthcare entities working with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Credit card acceptance triggers applicability of the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI-DSS), a widely recognized standard for protecting cardholder data. Additionally, pharmacies often fall under the FTC Red Flags Rule, which applies to organizations that maintain consumer accounts and must protect against identity theft. By contrast, FISMA applies to federal agencies or contractors, not pharmacies, and FedRAMP applies only to cloud service providers working with the federal government. Therefore, the correct set of regulatory factors is FTC Red Flags Rule, PCI-DSS, and CMS Minimum Security Requirements (High).

The HITRUST CSF is structured around a hierarchical model:

Control Categories → 14 high-level groupings (e.g., Access Control, Incident Management).

Control Objectives → Define goals under each category.

Control References → Specific implementation requirements aligned to objectives.

This structure ensures traceability from high-level objectives down to actionable control requirements.

Option B describes NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF), not HITRUST.

Option A/C include COBIT, which is integrated but not the structural foundation.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Overview, CCSFP Guide [0134]):

The CSF is organized into Control Categories, Control Objectives, and Control References.

The HITRUST CSF integrates requirements from multiple authoritative sources (e.g., HIPAA, NIST 800-53, ISO 27001, PCI-DSS). However, the CSF does not replicate all requirements verbatim from each framework. Instead, HITRUST rationalizes, harmonizes, and normalizes these sources into a single unified framework. This means that overlapping requirements across standards are consolidated into common control references, reducing redundancy. Additionally, not every provision from an authoritative source is represented; instead, HITRUST includes requirements that are most relevant to information protection and compliance assurance. For example, PCI-DSS operational practices like business rules may not appear exactly as written, but their security objectives are captured within CSF control statements. Therefore, the CSF is comprehensive and risk-based, but it does not literally encompass every requirement word-for-word.

When performing scoping for an r2 assessment, HITRUST requires consideration of risk factors that tailor requirement statements. Four categories are applied: Technical, Organizational, Compliance, and Operational.

Technical Risk Factors consider measurable characteristics such as number of users, systems, or transactions, which directly influence the size and complexity of the control environment.

Organizational Risk Factors address the type of business, industry sector, and whether the entity is a covered entity or business associate.

Compliance Risk Factors incorporate regulatory drivers (e.g., HIPAA, PCI DSS, state laws) that generate additional requirement statements.

Operational Risk Factors consider how data is used, stored, and transmitted, including exposure points like internet-facing systems.

“General” and “Privacy” are not categories formally recognized in the HITRUST methodology. Privacy obligations are accounted for under compliance drivers such as HIPAA, GDPR, or state laws. These categories ensure that control requirements are right-sized to the entity’s unique environment, reducing both over-scoping and under-scoping.

The Measured maturity level requires organizations to demonstrate structured metrics, analysis, and reporting across seven defined criteria. If these criteria are not met, the Measured level cannot receive any positive score. Instead, it defaults to Tier 0, representing Non-Compliant (0%) at this maturity level. This ensures that organizations cannot claim credit for partial or informal measurement practices. For example, if firewall logs are collected but never analyzed or reported, the criteria are not satisfied, and the Measured score remains Tier 0. Only once all seven criteria are satisfied can scoring begin at Tier 4 and be adjusted based on coverage and strength.

In a Validated Assessment, organizations are required to score Policy, Procedure, and Implementation maturity levels for all applicable requirements. The Measured and Managed levels are considered advanced maturity tiers and are not mandatory for every requirement. They are only scored where applicable, typically for controls involving monitoring, governance, or performance management. For example, requirements around continuous vulnerability scanning or incident response metrics may include Measured and Managed, while policy-only requirements do not. Therefore, while entities may choose to pursue Measured and Managed maturity for stronger assurance or competitive differentiation, they are not required for certification. Certification can still be achieved with strong performance in the foundational maturity levels (Policy, Procedure, Implementation).

HITRUST defines sample sizes for manual controls based on the frequency of operation. For controls that operate weekly, the required sample size is 5 items. This ensures that the assessor can evaluate consistency over multiple weeks without excessive burden. For example, if access logs are reviewed weekly, five weeks of logs must be tested. A higher frequency (e.g., daily controls) requires larger samples, such as 25. Conversely, less frequent controls (e.g., monthly or quarterly) may only require 2 or 1 sample. The structured sampling methodology provides consistency across assessments, ensures sufficient evidence for scoring, and prevents under-testing of critical controls.

The r2 assessment is the most risk-tailorable of all HITRUST assessment types. Unlike the standardized e1 and i1 assessments, which are designed for essential or moderate assurance, the r2 adapts dynamically based on organizational, technical, compliance, and operational risk factors. For example, the number of users, systems, or internet-facing components directly impacts the number and type of requirement statements. Regulatory drivers such as HIPAA, PCI-DSS, or GDPR also add requirements, ensuring the assessment aligns with the entity’s unique obligations. This tailoring ensures that organizations with higher risk exposure face more stringent testing, while lower-risk entities are not overburdened with unnecessary controls. Neither interim assessments nor bridge certificates are tailorable—they are point-in-time processes tied to existing validated assessments.

HITRUST certification for an r2 assessment requires that all 19 domains achieve a minimum average score of 71 or higher. Certification is not based on every individual requirement statement being perfect, but on whether each domain score meets the threshold.

Looking at the Data Protection & Privacy domain in the table:

Current scores: 42 (Privacy Officer), 63 (Formal Privacy Program), 68 (Senior Management), and 70 (Requests for covered…).

These average to 60.75, which is below the 71 threshold.

If the “Privacy Officer” requirement score increases from 42 → 50, the recalculated domain average becomes:

(50 + 63 + 68 + 70) ÷ 4 = 62.75.

Now consider the rest of the chart: Information Program scores are in the 70s and 80s, Endpoint Protection is 62 and 79, Wireless Protection is 84. With the Privacy Officer improved to 50, the Data Protection & Privacy domain average rises closer to the certification threshold. Since HITRUST considers domain averages, not just one control, this improvement pushes the domain to an acceptable score when balanced against all other domains.

Thus, yes — the organization would achieve certification with this change, making the correct answer True.

In an i1 assessment, scoring below threshold levels (generally 83 for certification-critical controls) results in a required Corrective Action Plan (CAP). A score of 37 falls into the “Somewhat Compliant” category and indicates major deficiencies. Because i1 assessments emphasize cybersecurity hygiene, HITRUST does not allow “risk acceptance” at such low scores. Instead, CAPs are required to ensure remediation is planned and tracked. This approach guarantees that organizations address weaknesses that could leave them vulnerable to common threats. Unlike r2 assessments, where some flexibility exists based on risk tailoring, i1 is structured to enforce mandatory remediation for below-threshold results. Therefore, a Control Reference score of 37 in i1 unequivocally requires a CAP.

HITRUST allows grouping of components to improve efficiency in assessments, but only when there is sufficient homogeneity among the components. Grouping is permitted when systems share the same configurations (e.g., identical firewall rule sets, server builds), the same patch levels (demonstrating equal maintenance and security posture), or when facilities use identical access management systems (ensuring consistent physical security practices). The logic behind grouping is that if controls are identical across multiple assets, then one test can represent the whole group without introducing risk. However, grouping must be supported by documentation proving uniformity. If variations exist—for example, one system with different access rules or a facility with a different badge system—those components must be assessed separately. Grouping reduces duplication and workload, but it requires strict evidence of control uniformity to maintain assessment reliability.

A Corrective Action Plan (CAP) is used when a requirement statement is not fully satisfied. HITRUST requires specific information to ensure the CAP is actionable and trackable:

Responsible party → assigns accountability.

Status → indicates if the CAP is open, in progress, or closed.

Steps for remediation → outlines actions that will be taken.

Estimated completion date → provides a timeline for closure.

The amount of capital/expense is not a required element in HITRUST documentation, as CAPs focus on remediation planning and accountability, not budgeting.

Extract Reference (HITRUST CSF Assurance Program, CCSFP Guide, CAP Documentation [0064]):

Each CAP must include responsible individual(s), remediation steps, current status, and estimated completion date to be valid in MyCSF.

HITRUST uses a scoring scale from 0 to 100, with categories for Fully Compliant, Mostly Compliant, Partially Compliant, Somewhat Compliant, and Non-Compliant. A score of 37 falls into the “Somewhat Compliant” category. This reflects significant weaknesses in Policy, Procedure, or Implementation maturity levels. Such a low score indicates a gap that must be addressed. Depending on whether the control is required for certification, HITRUST may require a Corrective Action Plan (CAP). CAPs are required when certification-critical controls score below thresholds (e.g., Implementation not at 100% where required). Therefore, a Requirement Statement score of 37 would be treated as a gap with a possible required CAP, depending on its criticality within the certification process.

The Implemented maturity level measures whether a control is operating effectively in practice. Scoring is based on the proportion of evaluative elements in place. In this scenario, two of the four required elements are implemented. This equates to 50% compliance, so the correct score is 50. For example, if a firewall control requires four items (documented rules, change management process, monitoring, and testing), and only two are in place, the organization is halfway compliant. This method ensures that partial implementation is acknowledged but also highlights gaps needing remediation. Scores of 0, 25, or 75 would not accurately reflect two of four elements, making 50 the correct value.

HITRUST enforces a strict separation of duties to maintain assessor independence. External assessors are prohibited from remediating controls for their clients. Their role is to evaluate, test, and validate, not to design or implement fixes. If an assessor directly assists in remediation, they compromise their independence and introduce conflicts of interest. This situation undermines the credibility of the assurance program. In the example, because David assisted in remediation, he cannot objectively validate the effectiveness of the same control. The client would need to use separate consulting resources for remediation while retaining the assessor for independent validation. This rule preserves the integrity and impartiality of the certification process.

Readiness assessments, including the i1 Readiness Assessment, are not formally submitted to HITRUST QA. Instead, they are internal preparation exercises intended to help organizations identify gaps, plan remediation, and get ready for a validated assessment. QA reviews are reserved for validated assessments (e1, i1, and r2) that are submitted for certification or validated reports. Readiness results can be used by management or shared with business partners informally, but they are not validated by HITRUST. This distinction preserves HITRUST QA resources for validated assurance activities and emphasizes that readiness is an organizational self-assessment step.

An r2 certification is valid for two years, but only if an interim assessment is performed at the one-year mark and interim requirements are met. The interim assessment ensures that the organization continues to maintain its controls, remediate CAPs, and discharge any pending N/A justifications. If an interim is not completed or requirements are not met, the certification can lapse. Unlike option A, remediation of all CAPs and N/As is not required before certification is maintained, though CAP progress must be monitored. Certification is not automatically valid for two years (option C), nor is it indefinite (option D). Thus, the correct answer is that certification is valid for two years provided interim requirements are met.