Actor Accountability Rate(4.4.8)

For a governance audit to be meaningful, every significant action needs to be traceable to a responsible actor. Events with no actor attribution create gaps in the audit trail — they happened, but we don't know who was responsible. The accountability rate measures what proportion of all events have known actor attribution.

What you can conclude

• A project with a low accountability rate has significant audit trail gaps — compliance reviews may flag this as a governance failure.
• A high and consistent accountability rate across all projects indicates that the organization's access and attribution controls are working correctly.
• A sudden drop in accountability rate may indicate a system account, an integration, or a misconfigured automation that is generating unattributed events.

How this chart works

Bar chart showing the percentage of events with known actor attribution per project, with a letter grade. Use the date and project filters to track specific teams or periods. Every bar is read from the same week, the latest complete week that produced a rated value, and the week in progress is not plotted. Projects with no rated activity in that week draw no bar and are counted in the note above the chart. Comparing bar heights is the whole point of a per-project chart, so a bar measured in one week standing beside a bar measured three months earlier would not be a comparison. The Avg Accountability Rate card above reads that same week, so the card and the bars agree.

A DORA or NIS2 reviewer asking "who made this change?" needs attribution; this shows where it is missing.

A project-week carrying fewer than five recorded events is left unrated: on a single event the rate can only be 0 or 100, and a letter grade on that is a statement about the calendar rather than about attribution. The event counts behind every project-week are still recorded, rated or not.