massive re-write from org-publish to weblorg

1 files changed, 76 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/content/blog/2023-06-20-audit-review-template.org b/content/blog/2023-06-20-audit-review-template.org
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..135a845
--- /dev/null
+++ b/content/blog/2023-06-20-audit-review-template.org
@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+#+title: Audit Testing Review Template
+#+date: 2023-06-20
+#+description: A handy reference template for audit review.
+#+filetags: :audit:
+
+* Overview
+This post is a /very/ brief overview on the basic process to review
+audit test results, focusing on work done as part of a financial
+statement audit (FSA) or service organization controls (SOC) report.
+
+While there are numerous different things to review and look for - all
+varying wildly depending on the report, client, and tester - this list
+serves as a solid base foundation for a reviewer.
+
+I have used this throughout my career as a starting point to my reviews,
+and it has worked wonders for creating a consistent and objective
+template to my reviews. The goal is to keep this base high-level enough
+to be used on a wide variety of engagements, while still ensuring that
+all key areas are covered.
+
+* Review Template
+1. [ ] Check all documents for spelling and grammar.
+2. [ ] Ensure all acronyms are fully explained upon first use.
+3. [ ] For all people referenced, use their full names and job titles
+   upon first use.
+4. [ ] All supporting documents must cross-reference to the lead sheet
+   and vice-versa.
+5. [ ] Verify that the control has been adequately tested:
+   - [ ] *Test of Design*: Did the tester obtain information regarding
+     how the control should perform normally and abnormally (e.g.,
+     emergency scenarios)?
+   - [ ] *Test of Operating Effectiveness*: Did the tester inquire,
+     observe, inspect, or re-perform sufficient evidence to support
+     their conclusion over the control? Inquiry alone is not adequate!
+6. [ ] For any information used in the control, whether by the control
+   operator or by the tester, did the tester appropriately document the
+   source (system or person), extraction method, parameters, and
+   completeness and accuracy (C&A)?
+   - [ ] For any reports, queries, etc. used in the extraction, did the
+     tester include a copy and notate C&A considerations?
+7. [ ] Did the tester document the specific criteria that the control is
+   being tested against?
+8. [ ] Did the tester notate in the supporting documents where each
+   criterion was satisfied?
+9. [ ] If testing specific policies or procedures, are the documents
+   adequate?
+   - [ ] e.g., a test to validate that a review of policy XYZ occurs
+     periodically should also evaluate the sufficiency of the policy
+     itself, if meant to cover the risk that such a policy does not
+     exist and is not reviewed.
+10. [ ] Does the test cover the appropriate period under review?
+    - [ ] If the test is meant to cover only a portion of the audit
+      period, do other controls exist to mitigate the risks that exist
+      for the remainder of the period?
+11. [ ] For any computer-aided audit tools (CAATs) or other automation
+    techniques used in the test, is the use of such tools explained and
+    appropriately documented?
+12. [ ] If prior-period documentation exists, are there any missing
+    pieces of evidence that would further enhance the quality of the
+    test?
+13. [ ] Was any information discovered during the walkthrough or inquiry
+    phase that was not incorporated into the test?
+14. [ ] Are there new rules or expectations from your company's internal
+    guidance or your regulatory bodies that would affect the audit
+    approach for this control?
+15. [ ] Was an exception, finding, or deficiency identified as a result
+    of this test?
+    - [ ] Was the control deficient in design, operation, or both?
+    - [ ] What was the root cause of the finding?
+    - [ ] Does the finding indicate other findings or potential fraud?
+    - [ ] What's the severity and scope of the finding?
+    - [ ] Do other controls exist as a form of compensation against the
+      finding's severity, and do they mitigate the risk within the
+      control objective?
+    - [ ] Does the finding exist at the end of the period, or was it
+      resolved within the audit period?