Assessor Experiences in CMMC Level 2 Certification Assessments: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Role Expectations

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.27587v1
• Date: Tue, 26 May 2026 18:56:40 GMT
• Title: Assessor Experiences in CMMC Level 2 Certification Assessments: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis of Role Expectations
• Abstract summary: The study examines the lived experiences of CMMC-Certified Assessors and how they navigate role expectations within the non-consultative model.<n>Findings indicate that assessors rely on technical competence, procedural discipline, and boundary management strategies to reconcile competing expectations.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification program requires third-party assessments be conducted under a non-consultative model. The model is intended to ensure impartiality for organizations seeking certification. While this structure defines expectations for assessor behavior, assessor experiences and interpretations of these constraints remain underexamined. The study examines the lived experiences of CMMC-Certified Assessors and how they navigate role expectations within the non-consultative model. Using Role Conflict Theory as a guiding framework, Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was applied to semi-structured interviews to explore how assessors make sense of their roles. The analysis identified experiential themes that describe how assessors construct professional credibility, execute structured assessment work, and manage the practical challenges of maintaining non-consultative boundaries. Findings indicate that assessors rely on technical competence, procedural discipline, and boundary management strategies to reconcile competing expectations. As an exploratory study, the results are not intended to be generalizable but provide initial empirical insight into assessor experiences, highlight considerations related to boundary clarity and assessor/organization interaction, and demonstrate the suitability of IPA for examining practitioner experience within cybersecurity compliance contexts.

Related papers

• From Holistic Evaluation to Structured Criteria: Rubrics Across the Evolving LLM Landscape [79.30826980815927]
  rubrics are explicit criteria sets that transform complex quality judgments into structured and actionable standards.<n>We systematically organize existing rubric designs, examine their construction and optimization, and analyze their role across evaluation and training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-07T13:34:55Z)
• Time to REFLECT: Can We Trust LLM Judges for Evidence-based Research Agents? [61.49434544687523]
  We introduce REFLECT, a meta-evaluation benchmark targeting fine-grained failure detection in agentic environments.<n> REFLECT defines a detailed taxonomy of process- and outcome-level failure modes, instantiated by performing controlled and localized interventions.<n>Our experiments show that even the best-performing models achieve overall accuracies below 55% across reasoning, tool-use, and report-quality failures.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T23:55:08Z)
• Beyond Detection: Governing GenAI in Academic Peer Review as a Sociotechnical Challenge [7.402573615005516]
  Generative AI tools are increasingly entering academic peer review, raising questions about fairness, accountability, and the legitimacy of evaluative judgment.<n>This paper presents discourse analysis of 448 social media posts with interviews with 14 area chairs and program chairs from leading AI and HCI conferences.<n>We find broad agreement that GenAI may be acceptable for limited supportive tasks, but that core evaluative judgments, assessing novelty, contribution, and acceptance, should remain human responsibilities.<n>We argue that AI-assisted peer review is best governed not by blanket bans or detection alone, but by explicitly reserving evaluative judgment for humans while instituting enforceable, role-specific controls
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-02T19:23:04Z)
• The Need for Standardized Evidence Sampling in CMMC Assessments: A Survey-Based Analysis of Assessor Practices [0.0]
  This study investigates whether inconsistencies in evidence sampling practices exist within the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification ecosystem.<n>Results indicate that evidence sampling practices are driven by assessor judgment, perceived risk, and environmental complexity rather than formalized standards.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T15:40:44Z)
• Mirror: A Multi-Agent System for AI-Assisted Ethics Review [104.3684024153469]
  Mirror is an agentic framework for AI-assisted ethical review.<n>It integrates ethical reasoning, structured rule interpretation, and multi-agent deliberation within a unified architecture.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-09T03:38:55Z)
• Expert Preference-based Evaluation of Automated Related Work Generation [54.29459509574242]
  We propose GREP, a multi-turn evaluation framework that integrates classical related work evaluation criteria with expert-specific preferences.<n>For better accessibility, we design two variants of GREP: a more precise variant with proprietary LLMs as evaluators, and a cheaper alternative with open-weight LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-11T13:08:07Z)
• AGACCI : Affiliated Grading Agents for Criteria-Centric Interface in Educational Coding Contexts [0.6050976240234864]
  We introduce AGACCI, a multi-agent system that distributes specialized evaluation roles across collaborative agents.<n>AGACCI outperforms a single GPT-based baseline in terms of rubric and feedback accuracy, relevance, consistency, and coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-07T15:50:46Z)
• A Procedural Framework for Assessing the Desirability of Process Deviations [0.0]
  This paper presents a procedural framework to guide process analysts in systematically assessing deviation desirability.<n>It provides a step-by-step approach for identifying which input factors to consider in what order to categorize deviations into mutually exclusive desirability categories.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-13T07:24:57Z)
• Two Experts Are All You Need for Steering Thinking: Reinforcing Cognitive Effort in MoE Reasoning Models Without Additional Training [86.70255651945602]
  We introduce a novel inference-time steering methodology called Reinforcing Cognitive Experts (RICE)<n>RICE aims to improve reasoning performance without additional training or complexs.<n> Empirical evaluations with leading MoE-based LRMs demonstrate noticeable and consistent improvements in reasoning accuracy, cognitive efficiency, and cross-domain generalization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T17:59:16Z)
• The simulation of judgment in LLMs [32.57692724251287]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly embedded in evaluative processes, from information filtering to assessing and addressing knowledge gaps through explanation and credibility judgments.<n>This raises the need to examine how such evaluations are built, what assumptions they rely on, and how their strategies diverge from those of humans.<n>We benchmark six LLMs against expert ratings--NewsGuard and Media Bias/Fact Check--and against human judgments collected through a controlled experiment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T18:52:10Z)
• Ask-AC: An Initiative Advisor-in-the-Loop Actor-Critic Framework [41.04606578479283]
  We introduce a novel initiative advisor-in-the-loop actor-critic framework, termed as Ask-AC. At the heart of Ask-AC are two complementary components, namely action requester and adaptive state selector. Experimental results on both stationary and non-stationary environments demonstrate that the proposed framework significantly improves the learning efficiency of the agent.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-07-05T10:58:11Z)
• Towards a multi-stakeholder value-based assessment framework for algorithmic systems [76.79703106646967]
  We develop a value-based assessment framework that visualizes closeness and tensions between values. We give guidelines on how to operationalize them, while opening up the evaluation and deliberation process to a wide range of stakeholders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-05-09T19:28:32Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.