The Binary Audit Philosophy: Use of a subjective, moral philosophy

It is important to note that the binary philosophy employs an objective paradigm of true and false, as opposed to a moral philosophy of right and wrong or good enough. True and false logic can be used by a processor to measure highly accurate values in terms of binary ones and zeroes, while right and wrong values are subjective and accurate only to the opinions of the author in most cases. True and false logic can be used to automate compliance processes, thereby evolving the organization’s maturity levels. Subjective judgments cannot be automated. (See Achieving Organizational Maturity Levels Using The Binary Philosophy) It is therefore critical to choose audit evidence that is not only germane to the language of the standard, but evidence that is generated as a certain binary proof that required compliance activity has occurred. This requires setting aside some traditional norms for compliance proofs in favor of better evidence that eliminates subjectivity.

 

To cite a general example applicable to many situations, one can employ a control to conduct a routine review of current certifications that are mandatory for compliance. During an audit, it becomes clear that a bad outcome has occurred, and the root cause of the violation must be determined:

Scenario 1: The auditor discovers that one certification was overlooked and concludes that this is the cause of the bad outcome. The auditor generates a finding to employ stronger controls in the future.

Scenario 2: The auditor discovers that a binary method has been employed to routinely check the source of new certifications. The implementation of newly found certifications was also given a binary value for its existence in the system. Compliance measurements showed 100% for every certification by that binary value, yet the same bad outcome occurred. The auditor concludes that compliance has been achieved, and that the certification itself was at fault at the source. No findings are generated.