The Binary Audit Philosophy: Article #1 The Binary Mindset

I’ve often tried to summarize the main issues on why preparing for an audit review can be so complex. You shouldn’t need to be a seasoned audit professional to plainly see whether your information is in line with the language of regulatory standards, controls, and contracts in a common sense fashion. This series offers some proven answers and solutions as to how you can construct a bullet-proof compliance program with full agreement on all sides of the audit or contract review.

Issue 1: Incorrect evidence choices

A binary mindset is critical in the audit process. After processing thousands of audit findings, the consistent theme is that there are so many information choices, it becomes inevitable to have opposing opinions on which choice is the right one, resulting in remediation tasks. The problem is often that the compliance evidence does not specifically relate to the compliance language on an interpretive level. Here are some three things to keep in mind to make the choices more binary:

First, the evidence should be titled with a similar reference to the compliance language to pass the smell test. That way, the reviewer will see clearly that the label is correct.

Second, a consistent methodology should be used to choose evidence. Consistency always breeds credibility. Methodologies such as the DL2C Algorithm provide a consistent way to map language to data in a binary manner.

Third, the choice should be corroborated by the information owner and subject matter expert so that it is clear that the mathematical choice also finds agreement with the subjective opinion of the industry expert.

And finally, the evidence should have a published basis that confirms that the choice is valid.

Consider these types of positive or negative values for determining if the evidence is either compliant or not. The binary answer should be clear.