Operations · Example
Audit evidence readiness review
Match existing evidence to an agreed request list and prepare a reviewable gap register.
A possible approach to the work—not a client result or a promise of outcomes.
Today
Where work gets stuck
Control owners gather files repeatedly and manually check whether each item covers the requested system, period, and activity.
With AI in the workflow
What could change
AI suggests evidence matches and explains possible gaps. The owner reviews an indexed evidence pack with confirmed items and unresolved requests kept separate.
Required inputs
- Agreed audit request list and assessment period
- Permitted records with dates, system scope, and owners
- Evidence acceptance criteria and handling restrictions
How the example works
- When an evidence request arrives, confirm its scope, period, and authorized reviewers.
- Match available files to requests and show which passage or record supports each proposed match.
- Flag stale, incomplete, or wrongly scoped evidence; draft specific follow-up requests without manufacturing missing records.
- Have control owners verify provenance and completeness, then approve the evidence index and permitted access for review.
People stay accountable
The human decision
Control owners attest to the underlying records. The auditor determines evidence sufficiency and audit conclusions; AI cannot certify compliance or turn a written policy into proof that a control operated.
What to measure
Time to a reviewed evidence pack, incorrect matches, gaps missed against reviewer assessment, and evidence returned for scope or period problems.
Risks to address
Sensitive records shared too broadly, stale screenshots, missing provenance, and an AI summary substituted for original evidence.
Readiness
Start with one request set, named control owners, and agreed evidence criteria. Preserve original files and access restrictions.
Typical systems
Approved evidence storage, governance or audit tools, and the existing request tracker. Sharing permissions require verification before reviewers receive access.
Research behind this example
These sources describe related activities or capabilities. They do not establish results for this example or validate the complete proposed workflow.