Recovery Time and Data-Loss Objective Check
Did verified recovery meet the time and data-loss objectives?
Worked example
A service owner can check the elapsed time to verified restoration separately from the age of the last consistent recovered data. Record each timestamp and the target used.
A fictional service is verified after 220 minutes against a 240-minute recovery target. The latest consistent recovered record is 80 minutes old at the outage, missing the 60-minute data-loss target.
Try it yourself
The calculator opens with the fictional example already filled in. Change one input, choose Calculate locally, and compare the result to the original values below. Use Reset fictional fixture to start over.
An unknown result means the available inputs do not support a value. Check the calculator’s Warnings tab for what is missing or uncertain.
- Verified restoration time 220 minutes
- Recovered data gap 80 minutes
- Elapsed time at assessment 240 minutes
Import local JSON or CSV
Files stay in this browser. Maximum 1 MiB. JSON imports are recalculated. CSV supports flat observation tables, with column types taken from the displayed fixture. Empty cells become null.
Compare the arrangements
Keep physical resources and evaluation conditions equal. With identical inputs, all three approaches produce identical arithmetic. The comparison refuses material differences in declared conditions; it does not verify those declarations.
Privacy: comparison inputs may contain sensitive notes or operational details. Storage is off by default. Do not enter personal records or sensitive infrastructure details. Reproduction exports include supplied inputs and notes, including raw small-cell inputs suppressed from CORE-009 result tables. Suppression of displayed results does not make a reproduction export safe to publish.
Executive brief and reproducible export
Review for personal, confidential or sensitive material before saving or sharing. No automatic submission occurs.
Read the generated brief
Method, inputs and limits
Compare verified restoration and the latest consistent recovered record with declared recovery targets. Method version 0.2.0. Predict restoration or certify that a service or restored record is consistent.
| Input | Unit / type | Required interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| outageAt — Outage began | ISO timestamp / number | Use an explicit UTC offset or Z. |
| asOf — Assessment time | ISO timestamp / number | Fix the clock for reproducible checks. It must be at or after the outage. |
| verifiedAt — Service restoration verified | ISO timestamp or null / number | Null means verification is still unknown. |
| recoveredRecordAt — Latest consistent recovered record | ISO timestamp or null / number | Use a verified point at or before the outage. Null means the data-loss interval is unknown. |
| rtoMinutes — Recovery time objective | minutes / number | Largest permitted time from outage to verified restoration. |
| rpoMinutes — Recovery point objective | minutes / number | Largest permitted gap between the recovered record and outage. |
Visible mathematics / decision rules
Elapsed restoration minutes = (verified restoration − outage time) ÷ 60,000 milliseconds.
Recovered data gap = (outage time − latest consistent recovered point) ÷ 60,000 milliseconds.
What this result cannot establish
- A target is met when the observed value is at or below it.
- An unverified restoration can be overdue. The actual restoration time remains unknown.
What would falsify the assumptions?
- Reconcile the outage clock, test completion and recovered record against the incident log.
- Assumptions fail if the supplied definitions, units, period, scope or source records are wrong or incomplete.
- An independent source audit or replication may contradict an input or the recorded dependency.
- This method creates no resources. Physical conservation is checked in the inventory and transfer ledgers; descriptive graphs and checklists are not resource-flow models.
- The same equations and review checklist can be reproduced with a spreadsheet or structured human-only process.
- This is deterministic arithmetic, a descriptive comparison or a structured governance check, not a fitted causal effect or forecast. Fictional inputs remain an exercise.
- Equal or worse measured errors, net review effort, disclosure burden or fallback under MAR would show no added benefit or added risk; no improvement is assumed.
Reproducible fictional fixture and independently calculated expectations
This fixture is synthetic. It does not describe a country, government, company or event.
{
"observations": {
"unit": "minutes",
"origin": "synthetic",
"sources": [
{
"id": "SYN-021",
"kind": "synthetic",
"label": "Fictional continuity exercise",
"url": null
}
],
"outageAt": "2026-01-01T08:00:00Z",
"asOf": "2026-01-01T12:00:00Z",
"verifiedAt": "2026-01-01T11:40:00Z",
"recoveredRecordAt": "2026-01-01T06:40:00Z"
},
"parameters": {
"rtoMinutes": 240,
"rpoMinutes": 60
}
}Expected checks
{
"restorationMinutes": 220,
"dataGapMinutes": 80,
"rtoStatus": "met",
"rpoStatus": "missed"
}Download input fixtureAuthoritative background references
- NIST: Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 — Outcome taxonomy, not a calculated national risk score. Reviewed 2026-11-09. Reference, not endorsement or validation.
- NIST: Contingency Planning Guide for Federal Information Systems (SP 800-34 Rev. 1, updated) — Background for recovery time and recovery point objectives. Reviewed 2026-11-11. Reference, not endorsement or validation.
These sources inform definitions or review practices. They do not validate this implementation or endorse MAR.