---
tool_id: WACK-TOOL-0009
concept_id: WACK-CONCEPT-0020
playbook_content_id: WACK-CONTENT-0058
status: draft
technical_review: pending
artifact_type: working_worksheet
---

# N/A Rationale Challenge Sheet

> Test the architecture fact, activity, and responsibility model behind an N/A conclusion.

**Expected output:** A dated applicability rationale with evidence, ownership, limitations, and change triggers.  
**Working time:** 30 minutes  
**Derived from:** WACK-CONTENT-0058

## Working context

Organization / environment: __________________________________________  
Facilitator / owner: __________________________________________________  
Participants: _________________________________________________________  
Date: ____________________  Review trigger or next date: ______________

## 01 / Find — Name the claimed absence

Start with the activity or condition, not the spreadsheet status.

- [ ] **What exact activity, technology, data, system, or condition is claimed to be absent or inapplicable?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **What current evidence supports that factual statement?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 02 / Map — Trace responsibility

Separate absence from outsourced or shared performance.

- [ ] **Does a provider perform any part of the activity?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Which customer configuration, oversight, monitoring, evidence, or response duties remain?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 03 / Explain — Write the conclusion

Make the reasoning reconstructable without oral history.

- [ ] **What fact-based rationale supports the status, and what are its limitations?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Who owns the conclusion and who reviewed it?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 04 / Reduce — Remove copied rationale

Consolidate the decision around one maintained source.

- [ ] **Where has stale or conflicting N/A language been copied?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Which duplicate record can point back to the canonical rationale instead?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## 05 / Prove — Set the review trigger

Connect the conclusion to changes that can invalidate it.

- [ ] **Which architecture, data-flow, service, technology, or responsibility change requires reconsideration?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

- [ ] **Where are the evidence, disposition, date, and trigger retained?**

  Notes: ________________________________________________

## Completion check

- [ ] The rationale identifies an observable fact.
- [ ] Provider, customer, and shared activity are distinguished.
- [ ] An owner and change trigger are recorded.

## Decision and next action

Decision: _____________________________________________________________  
Owner: __________________________  Due date: ___________________________  
Evidence or artifact location: ________________________________________

---

_Working practitioner worksheet pending technical review. It does not determine PCI DSS compliance, replace the standard, or replace instructions from an assessor or compliance-accepting entity. The Cluster of Wack is an independent resource and is not affiliated with or endorsed by PCI SSC._