Assurance Without Limits: Rethinking QAIP - 7 October
The findings below are the panellists’. The commentary around them, and the full argument, are in the white paper.
Functions believe they are joined up. The evidence — shared taxonomies, shared scoring, shared timing — says otherwise. Research cited on the panel put agreement on a common risk taxonomy at 36%.
The argument is not for less planning. It is for planning that runs continually on live risk intelligence — and for retiring the coverage debates that produce no assurance.
If proving conformance with the Global Internal Audit Standards requires a special exercise every five years, the purpose of the Standards has been misread.
Traceable, timely, explainable, independently verified, and connected to accountability. Regulators are not assessing technology. They are assessing governance.
Agenda time is rising. Visibility of where AI is actually deployed is not. Invisible AI arrives through business applications, third parties and individual experimentation.
When the alert fires tomorrow, who does something differently? Without that answer, an organisation has automated its anxiety rather than improved its assurance.
“What an organisation cannot see consistently, it cannot govern consistently. And if we cannot govern it, we cannot assure it.”
Mostafa Hassan · Chief Audit Officer, BEEAH Group
The framework offered on the panel by Faizal Chaudhury, and the most reusable part of the hour. Five characteristics, all of which have to hold.
“Whether it is regulators, the board or auditors, they are not evaluating technology. They are evaluating governance.”
Faizal Chaudhury · SVP and Head of Internal Audit, Bayview Asset Management
WHITE PAPER
The complete write-up of the session, with the defensible evidence framework, the regulatory position as it stands, and ten questions to take to your next audit committee. Written for chief audit executives, heads of risk and compliance, and audit committee members.
