Topic starter
25/06/2026 3:19 pm
TL;DR: Manual and ERP-native audit approaches are struggling as cloud adoption and regulatory scrutiny increase, while Thomson Reuters research cited by SafePaaS found nearly two-thirds of audit firms are considering progressive digital technologies in their workflow. Audit independence is becoming a governance requirement because evidence, testing, and reporting can no longer be trusted when the same operational teams control the systems being audited.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SafePaaS: “Modernize Your Audit Process: Navigating the New Risk Landscape”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when audit evidence is managed by the same team being audited?
A: The assurance model breaks because the team under review can influence what is captured, when it is captured, and how findings are presented.
Q: Why do cloud and multi-platform environments make compliance assurance harder?
A: They spread evidence, approvals, and control signals across more systems, which increases reconciliation effort and makes manual review less reliable.
Q: How can organisations tell whether their audit process is actually independent?
A: Look at who can change evidence, who approves findings, and whether the reporting path is insulated from operational owners.
Practitioner guidance
- Map audit evidence dependencies Identify where evidence is collected, who can alter it, and which systems create reconciliation gaps across cloud and ERP environments.
- Separate evidence custody from operations Move audit artefacts into a governed repository that business operators cannot modify, and define read, write, and approval rights explicitly.
- Review separation of duties in audit workflows Check whether the same team can initiate controls, gather evidence, resolve findings, and publish the final compliance narrative.
Bottom line: The article argues that compliance assurance now depends on audit independence, not just on collecting more evidence.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
25/06/2026 4:47 pm
Audit independence is now a governance control, not a procedural preference. Once cloud services, shared workflows, and cross-platform evidence collection become normal, the old assumption that auditors can rely on the same operational stack they are reviewing stops holding. That means independence has to be designed into access, evidence handling, and reporting boundaries, not declared after the fact. Practitioners should treat audit architecture as part of the control environment itself.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should teams replace ERP-native audit tooling with an independent audit platform?
A: If audit scope spans cloud services, multiple applications, and shared workflows, independent audit platforms usually reduce control conflicts and evidence fragility. The decision should be driven by whether the current model can preserve tamper resistance, separation of duties, and cross-system visibility without relying on manual workarounds.
👉 Read our full editorial: Independent audit platforms are reshaping compliance assurance