Topic starter
02/06/2026 6:59 pm
TL;DR: Oracle ERP teams may run strong native access and segregation-of-duties controls, but auditors increasingly want independent evidence that those controls worked across the year, not just inside the runtime, according to SafePaaS. The governance problem is no longer control design alone, but whether the evidence story is defensible across systems, timelines, and reviewers.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SafePaaS: “Are Your Oracle ERP Controls Failing Silently?”.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when Oracle ERP evidence comes only from the system under test?
A: The evidence story becomes easier to challenge because the same platform that executes the transaction is also certifying the control.
Q: Why do Oracle EBS configuration changes create audit and SoD risk?
A: Because access in Oracle EBS is often inherited through Menus, Functions, Request Groups, profile options, and organizational scope.
Q: What are the signs that Oracle ERP evidence is too manual to scale?
A: Repeated spreadsheet reconciliations, heavy dependence on a few subject-matter experts, and long explanations about where evidence came from usually indicate an assurance process that will not scale.
Practitioner guidance
- Establish an independent evidence store Keep Oracle control proof outside the runtime so auditors can validate access and SoD operation without relying on the system under test as the only evidence source.
- Correlate cross-system control activity Join Oracle, approvals, and adjacent application data so toxic access combinations can be evaluated across the full business process rather than app by app.
- Shift from audit-calendar reviews to continuous assurance Track access changes, integrations, and service-account additions as they happen so evidence reflects the operating period instead of a point-in-time sample.
Bottom line: Oracle ERP control design is no longer enough on its own when auditors want independent evidence of operation across the year.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
02/06/2026 7:14 pm
Oracle ERP evidence independence is now a governance requirement, not a reporting preference. When the system under test is also the primary source of proof, the control story becomes fragile under scrutiny. That assumption was tolerable when evidence demands were lighter, but it breaks when auditors need defensible, externalised proof across the full year. The practical conclusion is that evidence architecture now sits alongside access architecture as a core control design choice.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams prove segregation of duties across Oracle and connected apps?
A: They should correlate access, approvals, and transaction outcomes across the full process, not just within Oracle. If a purchase, journal, or vendor workflow crosses multiple systems, the SoD test has to follow that path end to end or the control conclusion will be incomplete.
👉 Read our full editorial: Oracle ERP control evidence gaps are widening under audit scrutiny