[Verse 1]
OSCAL's got a purpose, documentation's its game
But some folks try to use it where it just can't stake a claim
It's not a policy writer, won't create your rules for you
Can't author new requirements, that's not what it's meant to do
[Chorus]
Don't use it for authoring, enforcing, or reasoning through
OSCAL won't check consistency, that's not what it can do
It's infrastructure, not intelligence, remember this is true
Know where it won't be useful, and what it cannot do
[Verse 2]
When controls need enforcement, OSCAL steps aside
It documents the structure but won't execute or guide
No automatic checking, no runtime validation
It's a format for describing, not a control implementation
[Chorus]
Don't use it for authoring, enforcing, or reasoning through
OSCAL won't check consistency, that's not what it can do
It's infrastructure, not intelligence, remember this is true
Know where it won't be useful, and what it cannot do
[Bridge]
Completeness checking? No way
Logic gaps? Can't say
Formal reasoning? Not its lane
OSCAL won't detect what's missing from your security chain
[Verse 3]
It won't tell you if controls are logically sufficient
Can't verify your framework is complete and efficient
Three big limitations in the management control space
Authoring, enforcement, reasoning - know OSCAL's proper place
[Chorus]
Don't use it for authoring, enforcing, or reasoning through
OSCAL won't check consistency, that's not what it can do
It's infrastructure, not intelligence, remember this is true
Know where it won't be useful, and what it cannot do
[Outro]
Infrastructure not intelligence
That's the key to remember
OSCAL has its boundaries
Use it right, use it better