What it means
A PCI shared responsibility matrix assigns each applicable requirement and control activity among the assessed entity, service providers, customers, and other parties, including the evidence each must produce.
Why it matters
High-level contract language can leave gaps where every party assumes another performs configuration, monitoring, testing, incident, or evidence duties.
Practical focus
- Map responsibilities at the requirement and service level rather than using one responsibility statement for an entire provider.
- Identify shared controls, dependencies, customer configuration duties, evidence sources, frequency, and escalation.
- Reconcile the matrix with contracts, attestations, service descriptions, architecture, actual settings, and operational practice.
- Preserve this evidence: Retain approved definitions, decisions, operating records, exceptions, test results, and change history that show how PCI Shared Responsibility Matrix works over time.
- Exercise this failure scenario: The provider secures the platform and the customer secures its configuration, but neither party owns monitoring the customer-created administrative roles.
Common mistakes
- Using PCI Shared Responsibility Matrix as a label without defining its scope, owner, decision criteria, and expected evidence.
- Treating a diagram, policy, tool screen, or meeting as proof that PCI Shared Responsibility Matrix operates consistently in real work.
- Optimizing for a one-time review while leaving normal operating decisions, exceptions, and handoffs uncontrolled.
- Testing only the expected path and never rehearsing this failure condition: The provider secures the platform and the customer secures its configuration, but neither party owns monitoring the customer-created administrative roles.
Certification relevance
This subject appears in or supports the following certification bodies of knowledge: