73filers, current period
62the period before
52controls it touches
36frameworks
SOC 2 in 10-K and 10-Q filings, by month.
The marked line is the first month any public company in our record used the phrase; everything left of it is nobody writing it down.
Companies disclosing it
73
wrote this into a filing with the SEC
What it obligates
52
controls across 36 frameworks whose text speaks to it
Employers hiring for it
4,506
open US roles name it, and the ones below are hiring now
The long view, in annual and quarterly filings
A 10-K or 10-Q is a periodic report, so this counts how often the phrase appears in routine annual and quarterly reporting. It moves far more slowly and the numbers are larger.
Every month since 2008. The last point is the current month and is still
filling, so it always looks lower than it will be.
2008
peak 135 in February 2026
2026
Who disclosed it
From SEC full-text search over 8-K filings. Every row links to the filing itself.
| Company | Form | Filed | |
|---|
| OneMeta Inc. ONEI | 8-K | 2026-08-18 | filing |
| Artificial Intelligence Technology Solutions Inc. AITX | 8-K | 2026-09-15 | filing |
| Boost Run Inc. | 8-K | 2026-08-10 | filing |
| INTELLIGENT PROTECTION MANAGEMENT CORP. IPM | 8-K | 2026-08-11 | filing |
| KIDZ AI Inc. | 8-K | 2026-07-21 | filing |
| D-Wave Quantum Inc. QBTS | 8-K | 2026-07-07 | filing |
The full search on EDGAR
Who is hiring for it
A sample of the open roles naming this phrase. An employer paying a salary
against something is the least ambiguous demand signal there is, and every row links to the
posting so the claim can be checked rather than believed. The total above is the whole US
market; these are the ones we hold the posting for.
| Role | Posted |
|---|
| Customer Trust Lead COMMVAULT SYSTEMS INC · Telangana, India | 2026-09-22 |
| Lead Security Compliance Engineer Klaviyo, Inc. · Boston, MA | 2026-09-22 |
| Lead Security Compliance Engineer Klaviyo, Inc. · Denver, CO | 2026-09-22 |
| Senior Internal Automation Engineer Volta Inc. · Palo Alto, CA | 2026-09-22 |
| Principal Site Reliability Engineer Gen Digital Inc. · USA - Tempe, AZ | 2026-09-21 |
| Member of Technical Staff, IT Genesis Growth Tech Acquisition Corp. · Bay Area | 2026-09-21 |
| Associate Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Risk Analyst MongoDB, Inc. · United States | 2026-09-21 |
| Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Risk Analyst MongoDB, Inc. · Dublin, Ireland | 2026-09-21 |
| Senior Software Engineer (Federal) Okta, Inc. · San Francisco, California | 2026-09-21 |
| Software Engineer - Cloud Infrastructure Rubrik, Inc. · Palo Alto, CA | 2026-09-21 |
| Security Compliance Lead Asana, Inc. · San Francisco | 2026-09-18 |
| Senior Manager, IT Internal Audit Block, Inc. · Bay Area, CA, United States of America | 2026-09-18 |
| Staff Software Engineer (Federal) Okta, Inc. · San Francisco, California | 2026-09-18 |
| GRC Technical Program Manager UiPath, Inc. · Bucharest | 2026-09-18 |
Which industries file it
Companies grouped by the industry classification on their own filing. A count, not a
survey.
| Industry | | Companies |
|---|
| Software and IT services | | 138 |
| Banking | | 34 |
| Securities and investment | | 33 |
| Services and entertainment | | 31 |
| Holding and investment offices | | 29 |
| Instruments and medical devices | | 27 |
| Chemicals and pharmaceuticals | | 19 |
| Insurance | | 19 |
| Health services | | 15 |
| Industrial machinery | | 15 |
What it obligates
Our corpus holds 52 controls across
36 frameworks whose text speaks to this. Not a judgement:
these controls say so, and each is one lookup from its source document. Ordered by how much each
framework has to say about it, so the one that will cost you the most work is first. Every name
opens that framework in the corpus.
What an auditor will ask you to produce
The artefacts named on those controls, most frequently cited first.
- Role inventory + RACI
- Crosswalk document
- Evidence the safeguard is implemented: Assess Service Providers
- Policy/standard covering CIS Control 15 (Service Provider Management)
- Configuration / tooling output demonstrating the safeguard
- Records showing the safeguard is operating (logs, reports, reviews)
- NIST CSF mapping document
- ISO 27001/SOC 2 cross-reference
How it usually fails
Recorded when each control was verified against its source. This is where programmes
that think they are covered turn out not to be.
- Multi-framework alignment ad-hoc
- Roles undefined
- Sectoral coordination weak
- Missing due diligence
- Crosswalk not maintained
- Multi-framework alignment gaps
114If you already run ISO 27001:2013, that is the 114 controls behind this disclosure, already evidenced.
778And ISO 27701:2019 is not a separate programme. 778 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
538And ISO 27002:2022 is not a separate programme. 538 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
364And ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is not a separate programme. 364 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
Run as two programmes
892 controls
ISO 27001:2013 and ISO 27701:2019 scoped separately, each with its own
evidence, its own owner and its own budget line. This is how almost everybody does it.
Run once, counted twice
778 already done
778 of ISO 27701:2019's controls are controls you evidenced for
ISO 27001:2013. Same artefacts, same owner, no second effort. The mapping is the
only reason anybody knows.
SOC 2 in 10-K and 10-Q filings, by month.
The marked line is the first month any public company in our record used the phrase; everything left of it is nobody writing it down.
What this actually means
- Why now
- 73 public companies wrote this into an 8-K in the last seven days, 18% more than the seven before. That is not sentiment or a survey. It is a count of companies choosing to put a phrase into a document they are legally accountable for.
- Who already cares
- 4,506 open US roles name this work today, which suggests increased attention to it beyond what any filing says. A job advertisement clears a budget holder and a filing clears legal, so the two answer to different people. We have not measured which moves first, only that both are moving.
- What comes into scope
- Once the phrase is on the record it maps to obligations within ISO 27001:2013, ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2. 326 controls behind those, and the difference between asserting them and evidencing them is the whole of the work.
- Who is quietly ahead
- Anyone already running ISO 27001:2013 has done 778 of the controls that carry ISO 27701:2019 too. Same evidence, second standard. Most organisations run those as two programmes with two budgets because nobody told them the mapping existed.
- Who is exposed
- 5 companies disclosed this for the first time in the last ninety days, out of 461 in total. A first mention is a company deciding it can no longer not say it. Whoever has not yet is either genuinely unaffected or has not looked, and nothing here distinguishes the two.
What this obligates
The instruments in our corpus that govern this disclosure, and how many controls sit
behind each. This is not a filing count. It is what applies once a company has written the
phrase down.
5 frameworks, 326 controls between them.
What closing it also moves
The same controls appear in other frameworks through mappings held in our corpus. Work
done here is already progress there. This is the part that is not in EDGAR and not in any public
dataset: it comes from mappings built and verified by hand, control by control.
ISO 27701:2019778
ISO 27002:2022538
ISO/IEC 42001:2023364
ISO 22301:2019316
PCI DSS 4.0198
COBIT 2019148
NIS2 Directive134
Counted as controls reached through cross-framework mappings. It measures
overlap of work, not compliance with the named framework.
Run as two programmes
892 controls
ISO 27001:2013 and ISO 27701:2019 scoped separately, each with its own
evidence, its own owner and its own budget line. This is how almost everybody does it.
Run once, counted twice
778 already done
778 of ISO 27701:2019's controls are controls you evidenced for
ISO 27001:2013. Same artefacts, same owner, no second effort. The mapping is the
only reason anybody knows.
114If you already run ISO 27001:2013, that is the 114 controls behind this disclosure, already evidenced.
778And ISO 27701:2019 is not a separate programme. 778 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
538And ISO 27002:2022 is not a separate programme. 538 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
364And ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is not a separate programme. 364 of its controls are the same controls. If it is on next year's plan, that part of it is already done.
Tell me when SOC 2 files something new
One email when a public company newly discloses this, naming the company and what our corpus says it puts in scope. Nothing else, and one click to stop.
Where this comes from
The left half is public record: SEC full-text search over 8-K filings, counted across a
14 day window against the equivalent window before it. You can check
every row.
The right half is ours: 723 frameworks and
20,473 controls, 531 of those frameworks verified against
their source documents, with the auditor evidence and common failure modes recorded control by
control. Controls appear here because their own text names this term.
Cite this
The Art of Service Signals. SOC 2 corporate disclosure activity: 73 filers against 62 in the prior period, in 10-K and 10-Q filings, this quarter against the same quarter last year. Accessed 23 September 2026. https://signals.theartofservice.com/t/soc-2/
Free to use with attribution, no permission needed. The chart downloads as an SVG
with the source printed on it. If you cite it we would like to know, but you do not need to
ask.
Today's edition ·
How programmes fail ·
The obligation index