GOOD FIT
- SOX teams testing recurring ITGC and business-process controls
- Teams that separate preparer, reviewer, and control owner roles
- Auditors who need quarter-over-quarter lineage
SOX CONTROL TESTING
Keep control design, evidence, testing, review, and roll-forward in one chain.
Choose a registered control package, issue evidence requests, test a deterministic sample, resolve every question, and preserve the signed revision for the next quarter.
CURRENT CAPABILITY · UPDATED 2026-07-14
NOT A FIT
- Programs needing entity-wide scoping and risk-universe management
- Controls without an agreed objective, population, or evidence owner
- Teams that want every template represented as automated
THE JOB
What the product helps the audit team complete
- 01Start from prewired attributes, sampling defaults, and PBC requests
- 02Collect evidence directly from control owners
- 03Test, adjudicate, reperform, review, and sign a revision
- 04Carry controls and request lineage into the next quarter
REAL PRODUCT PATH
Capability status follows the control registry
A template is not labelled Automated merely because its setup form and evidence request exist.
Automated testing
Deterministic evaluator and real structured-file journey exist
Human-guided
The auditor applies the registered journal-entry procedures
Real project and PBC setup
Setup readiness is not the same as automated testing
CURRENTLY RUNS
- ITGC-03 is Automated testing for structured evidence
- ITGC-01, ITGC-04, FIN-12, PRC-04, EXP-02 are Human-guided
- All 6 templates can establish a real control and PBC request set
KNOWN LIMITS
- A Human-guided template does not produce automatic conclusions
- Control-package automation is promoted only after real-file E2E proof
- Search demand does not replace internal-audit methodology review
PRODUCT EVIDENCE
Inspect the current behavior
Capability-labelled templates →SOX starter generator →FIN-12 / ITGC-04 practitioner validation →Product architecture →
CAPABILITY REVIEWED 2026-07-14 · NO ANONYMOUS TRACKING COOKIE