Internal Audit & AI Assurance

AI Assurance Scope, Inventory and Evidence-Request Workbook

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Link a defined audit purpose to a bounded system inventory, supplied risk criteria and a proportionate evidence request. Keep scope approval separate from system-owner assertions.

Intended user

Engagement lead, audit practitioner and supervisor; system/data owners supply facts and access decisions.

When to use

Before fieldwork, when the system boundary changes or when missing access prevents a planned question being answered.

Included templates

• AI system inventory.
• AI risk classification worksheet.
• AI audit planning memo.
• AI evidence request list.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

AI system inventory

Completion guidance: Use AMO-P-000074 as a source method; do not discover a whole organisation from a partial list. Record use and system separately where one system has materially different uses.

AI risk classification worksheet

Completion guidance: If criteria are absent, describe the risk and request the criteria; do not calculate a rating. This view supports professional planning, not legal classification.

AI audit planning memo

Completion guidance: Use AMO-P-000361 to challenge the memo, then have the supervisor decide. Do not convert a readiness analysis into an audit mandate or promise effectiveness over excluded processes.

AI evidence request list

Completion guidance: A request is not evidence received. Record refusals and partial responses without treating them as proof of a control failure.

Bundle completion guidance

Complete the inventory first at the scope necessary for the question. Apply only supplied risk criteria, then challenge scope with AMO-P-000361 and request the missing records. Keep evidence IDs and permitted locators in the source register; include only the minimum permitted excerpt needed for the question, linked to the authoritative record. The workbook is an index and review record, not a reason to duplicate confidential originals. Apply the organisation's approved retention and privacy requirements; if the controlling record is absent, obtain the responsible records/privacy decision rather than prescribe a period.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Reviewer field: CA-09 contains a limited-use instruction; no plan approval or engagement conclusion is inferred. Unresolved exclusions and access limitations carry forward.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• No complete AI inventory or risk classification is established from partial self-reported inputs.
• Framework/sector mapping and legal applicability require separate qualified review.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000074 — Evidence-Grounded Shadow AI Risk Assessment and Governance Plan v2.0.0; AMO-P-000194 — Internal SOP Gap and Control Mapping Brief v1.0.0; AMO-P-000155 — Sensitive Data Handling Checklist for AI Workflows v2.0.1

Workflows: AMO-W-000002 — Vendor Procurement Due Diligence; AMO-W-000016 — Assess Enterprise Knowledge and RAG Readiness

Skills: AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000361 challenges the planning memo.
• AMO-W-000044 uses the reviewed scope and request register before analysis.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.

Risk-Control-Test and Evidence-Sufficiency Working Paper

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Connect a control question, authorised test design, actual evidence and bounded analysis without turning AI output into source evidence.

Intended user

Audit practitioner, engagement supervisor and a sampling/evaluation specialist where the method requires one.

When to use

When designing a test, recording supplied or performed work, reviewing system-evaluation evidence or deciding whether a working-paper claim is supportable.

Included templates

• AI risk and control matrix.
• Model/system evaluation worksheet.
• Audit evidence sufficiency checklist.
• AI-generated-work verification checklist.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

AI risk and control matrix

Completion guidance: Use AMO-P-000194 for the control map and AMO-P-000362 for design challenge. The human prepares bounded working-paper analysis from reviewed evidence rows; do not claim that extraction itself supplies an audit conclusion.

Model/system evaluation worksheet

Completion guidance: Reuse AMO-W-000013/AMO-S-000012 for evidence admissibility and AMO-P-000242 for RAG-specific interpretation. User satisfaction is not factual accuracy; judge agreement is not outcome fairness.

Audit evidence sufficiency checklist

Completion guidance: Use judgements supported by source locators. No checklist score or number of attached documents automatically determines sufficiency.

AI-generated-work verification checklist

Completion guidance: AMO-P-000071 supplies the verification method and AMO-S-000016 traceability. Retain that source method's own status labels when used; this sheet does not rename or elevate Amo Verified.

Bundle completion guidance

Use a common record ID to link the four views. Put the actual observation next to the applicable criterion, preserve denominator and timing, and leave conclusion fields limited if evidence is incomplete. Show proposed versus completed work explicitly. Human analysis and supervisor review are required before any finding or approved carry-forward. Keep risk, expected control, proposed/performed test, source evidence, observed result and reviewer interpretation separately attributable even when linked in one view. Missing evidence is an assessment limitation, not automatically an operating failure. If maintaining a record is itself an applicable control requirement, substantiate that requirement and the search/coverage basis before describing an absent required record as an observed exception.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Source dates and locators remain as in the case inventory. The arithmetic is over the supplied excerpt, not a new executed population test. Supervisor conclusion/closure is not completed.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• A sound design is not operating effectiveness; a proposed statistical rationale is not an authorised statistical method.
• Full training-data governance, explanation fidelity and outcome fairness remain outside these MVP methods.
• AI review is not independent assurance or an evidence custody system.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000194 — Internal SOP Gap and Control Mapping Brief v1.0.0; AMO-P-000045 — Evidence Table Extraction Prompt v2.0.0; AMO-P-000056 — Messy Dataset Audit Prompt v2.0.0; AMO-P-000071 — Evidence-Grounded AI Output Verification and Release Gate v2.0.0; AMO-P-000242 — RAG Retrieval and Citation Quality Evaluation Lab v1.0.0

Workflows: AMO-W-000013 — Review Production AI Evaluation Reliability

Skills: AMO-S-000012 — Assess AI Evaluation Evidence for Decision Use; AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000362 challenges sampling and test design.
• AMO-P-000363 reviews the resulting finding at its actual stage.
• AMO-W-000044 coordinates extraction, human analysis, challenge and final review.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.

GenAI and RAG Authorised Evaluation Sheets

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Separate test design, source grounding and defensive test observations with traceable inputs and explicit authority boundaries.

Intended user

AI assurance practitioner, knowledge owner and authorised evaluation/security reviewer.

When to use

When reviewing a GenAI/RAG evaluation or planning bounded synthetic tests; execution remains a separate authorised activity.

Included templates

• GenAI/RAG test plan.
• Hallucination and grounding test sheet.
• Authorised prompt-injection/adversarial test sheet.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

GenAI/RAG test plan

Completion guidance: Use AMO-P-000242/AMO-W-000016 and the relevant AMO-W-000013 method. Do not silently replace the source baseline during testing or invent a complete representative query population.

Hallucination and grounding test sheet

Completion guidance: A citation is not support by itself. Distinguish an answer accurately quoting an obsolete source from an answer inventing a promise. Do not assert a component cause without trace evidence.

Authorised prompt-injection/adversarial test sheet

Completion guidance: CR-06 is a design-only example. Never mark it passed because the plan exists. A few authorised tests cannot establish universal injection resistance.

Distinguish the issue under review

Use these distinctions to describe evidence, not to infer a cause from the result alone:

• Prompt injection: untrusted content attempts to redirect system instructions; a planned canary is not an observed successful attack.
• Retrieval poisoning: source/index content has been improperly introduced or altered to influence retrieval/answers; an obsolete document alone does not prove poisoning or intent.
• Unauthorised source access: a principal/purpose receives a source or context outside the applicable permission boundary; it can occur before a visible answer.
• Hallucination or unsupported answer: a generated claim lacks adequate support; distinguish this from faithfully repeating a stale source.
• Stale knowledge: retrieved content is superseded or not current for the question; establish dates and authority before attributing the cause.
• Excessive tool permission: available action authority exceeds the intended scope; do not invent action tools in a read-only RAG system.
• Insecure logging: recorded information, access or handling is inconsistent with the supplied requirements; missing logging evidence alone does not establish insecure logging.
• Sensitive-data disclosure: information crossed an established disclosure boundary; specify what and to whom to the extent evidenced, without extrapolating exposure volume or inventing legal consequences.

Several issues may coexist. Record the observed stage, evidence and alternative explanations; do not force every issue into one “AI security” category.

Bundle completion guidance

Approve authority and source expectations before any test; use synthetic data by default. A reviewer may inspect supplied excerpts without running anything. Record planned checks and actual observations in separate fields. Preserve source versions, entitlements and unanswerable cases; do not optimise a test by deleting difficult cases.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Q04's final refusal does not remove the context-entitlement issue. Reviewer next action is to obtain effective filtering/context evidence, not to declare a whole-system privacy failure or pass.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• No real offensive operation, provider call or production test is authorised by a filled sheet.
• An unexecuted case is coverage planning, not evidence that a defence works.
• Does not establish model certification, universal accuracy, security or privacy compliance.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000242 — RAG Retrieval and Citation Quality Evaluation Lab v1.0.0; AMO-P-000071 — Evidence-Grounded AI Output Verification and Release Gate v2.0.0

Workflows: AMO-W-000016 — Assess Enterprise Knowledge and RAG Readiness; AMO-W-000013 — Review Production AI Evaluation Reliability; AMO-W-000021 — Assure an AI System Change for Production Release

Skills: AMO-S-000007 — Diagnose RAG Grounding and Retrieval Failures; AMO-S-000012 — Assess AI Evaluation Evidence for Decision Use; AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000361 reviews scope where needed.
• AMO-P-000363 challenges any finding/closure claim; AMO-W-000044 records the bounded working paper.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.

AI Vendor and Operational Control Review Workbook

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Use linked sheets to distinguish supplier claims, intended controls, effective behaviour and outstanding evidence across the operating lifecycle.

Intended user

AI audit practitioner with procurement, access, operations, security and change owners supplying records; specialist decisions stay with authorised reviewers.

When to use

When a scoped question concerns vendor controls, permissions, oversight, monitoring, an incident or a system change. Complete only relevant modules.

Included templates

• Vendor due-diligence questionnaire.
• Agent permission and tool-access review.
• Human override/control review.
• AI monitoring review.
• AI incident review.
• AI change-management review.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

Vendor due-diligence questionnaire

Completion guidance: Reuse AMO-W-000002; do not turn completed answers into approval or infer the current tier from generic marketing.

Agent permission and tool-access review

Completion guidance: For a RAG-only system, assess retrieval/context access without pretending it has autonomous action tools. An output refusal is not proof of source access enforcement.

Human override/control review

Completion guidance: Trace detection → authority → action → effect → recovery. A visible button or acknowledgement alone cannot complete the effect field.

AI monitoring review

Completion guidance: Reuse AMO-W-000013/AMO-W-000016/AMO-W-000021 components. Satisfaction, drift and factual correctness are different constructs; a dashboard label is not a tested control.

AI incident review

Completion guidance: An exercise result is not production incident evidence. Do not delete logs, contact third parties or investigate beyond authority because a worksheet suggests a question.

AI change-management review

Completion guidance: Reuse AMO-W-000021 and its existing exact sources. Preserve current/previous baseline differences; no plan, ticket or resource title authorises production release.

Bundle completion guidance

Choose modules by the objective; share evidence IDs across them. Keep supplier statements, written design, actual configuration and observed results in separate cells. Use specialist sign-off only when actually obtained. For relevant logs, examine supplied access, integrity, minimisation and retention requirements and actual evidence; absent evidence is not proof that logging is insecure. Do not prescribe a retention duration. Apply the organisation's approved retention and privacy requirements. A fallback provider requires its own capability/data-boundary evidence, not an assumed equivalent.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Evidence obtained date in the case: 7 October. Proposed reviewer decision: hold the affected control claims pending specific evidence; no actual system change, notification or closure is performed.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• Does not supply a complete sector programme, infrastructure inspection or legal determination.
• Modules must not turn vendor or management assertions into independent operational evidence.
• Authorised real tests and source records are required for conclusions about actual systems.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000074 — Evidence-Grounded Shadow AI Risk Assessment and Governance Plan v2.0.0; AMO-P-000242 — RAG Retrieval and Citation Quality Evaluation Lab v1.0.0; AMO-P-000071 — Evidence-Grounded AI Output Verification and Release Gate v2.0.0

Workflows: AMO-W-000002 — Vendor Procurement Due Diligence; AMO-W-000013 — Review Production AI Evaluation Reliability; AMO-W-000016 — Assess Enterprise Knowledge and RAG Readiness; AMO-W-000021 — Assure an AI System Change for Production Release

Skills: AMO-S-000007 — Diagnose RAG Grounding and Retrieval Failures; AMO-S-000012 — Assess AI Evaluation Evidence for Decision Use; AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000361 bounds the engagement.
• AMO-P-000363 challenges management response/closure; AMO-W-000044 records reviewed analysis.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.

Audit Findings, Responses and Closure Register

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Maintain one traceable record per finding from draft through management response and independent closure review, preserving disputed facts and residual matters.

Intended user

Audit practitioner and authorised audit reviewer; management supplies responses, owns actions and requests closure.

When to use

When a finding is drafted, a response is received, an action changes or closure evidence is submitted. Stage-specific empty fields are allowed and explained.

Included templates

• Finding, response, action and closure record.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

Finding, response, action and closure record

Completion guidance: Use AMO-P-000363 at the applicable stage; do not populate future response/closure fields with invented commitments. Management may validate facts but does not approve the audit reviewer's conclusion. Closure needs a reasoned decision, not an automatic status change.

Bundle completion guidance

Keep the same finding reference through revisions. Record what changed and retain the earlier disputed statement by reference. Reporting extracts should carry scope, criterion, evidence limitation and unresolved matter. A due date passing, a reminder or a management completion statement does not close the issue. Record remediation evidenced, residual risk accepted by the authorised risk owner, and administrative closure as separate matters. A risk-acceptance or administrative decision is not a finding that remediation worked; retain its authority, rationale and open consequences. No universal retest or closure rule is invented by this form.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Finding CA-F1 (synthetic local reference), stage response/closure challenge. Criterion: CA-04 clause 2. Condition: CA-06 AC-09 shows approval later than issue, with exception record unavailable. Cause: not established. Effect: no actual harm evidenced; risk of unauthorised release remains a hypothesis for review. Response: CA-08 says reminder sent and requests closure. Owner: process owner offers coordination; precise commitment/due date absent. Closure/retest: no retest supplied. Decision: CA-09 does not approve closure. Carry-forward: obtain exception and subsequent-operation evidence; retain limited observation and unknown extent.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• Not a shared action-management system or automatic reminder tool.
• Risk acceptance, reporting and closure require authorised human decisions under the applicable methodology.
• A completed action can leave the original risk or evidence gap unresolved.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000194 — Internal SOP Gap and Control Mapping Brief v1.0.0; AMO-P-000071 — Evidence-Grounded AI Output Verification and Release Gate v2.0.0

Workflows: AMO-W-000021 — Assure an AI System Change for Production Release

Skills: AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000363 is the bounded challenge method.
• AMO-W-000044 carries only human-reviewed wording into the final working paper.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.

Auditor AI-Use Working-Paper Record and Declaration

Track A and Track B · Neutral documentation bundle

Purpose

Document permitted and actual AI assistance, source checking, edits and accountable reliance without retaining unnecessary confidential transcripts.

Intended user

Auditor using an assistant, engagement supervisor and data/provider approval owner where relevant.

When to use

Before intended AI use and after any actual contribution to working material; revise when purpose, data or provider scope changes.

Included templates

• AI-use working-paper disclosure.
• Responsible-AI-use declaration for auditors.

Shared evidence/provenance and human-review fields

Complete this cover once per working-paper record. Repeat only where the scope or reviewer changes. Local review rows should reference the shared decision ID when the same decision covers them; record only view-specific judgement or a different decision there, not duplicate names/dates. A role label alone may not identify the actual reviewer: use the responsible person or institution-controlled reviewer reference in the authorised record, without unnecessary personal data in provider inputs. Use source IDs in individual rows rather than copying the full evidence inventory. Blank is not a pass; use “not supplied”, “not performed”, “unclear”, or “not applicable — reason” accurately.

Suggested review states describe this document only: draft, awaiting evidence, returned for revision, held, or reviewed for the stated limited use. They do not change any application schema or establish an engagement conclusion. An action status is recorded separately from an evidence or reviewer status.

Field definitions and fillable templates

Each table is a blank working view. Duplicate a view or its item rows only for a distinct system, test, claim or event. Keep related evidence under stable IDs.

AI-use working-paper disclosure

Completion guidance: If no provider was used, write “none — supplied synthetic draft reviewed” rather than inventing a model or call time. A Run Record is optional activity documentation, not independent audit evidence.

Responsible-AI-use declaration for auditors

Completion guidance: This is an accountable-use record, not a certification form. Do not pre-sign it for another person. Permission must exist before restricted input is sent; a declaration cannot create that permission. Disclosure records involvement but does not make the work acceptable: source verification, competence, permitted use and actual professional review remain separate requirements.

Bundle completion guidance

Record intended use first; actual execution and review belong in the disclosure after they occur. Separate the provider-generated material from the authoritative source evidence. Use existing AMO-P-000155/AMO-P-000149 methods as references, with manual/external handling where the current surface cannot execute their tool label. An unavailable model/version is recorded as unknown, not inferred from a current UI.

Before carrying material forward, reconcile the question, criterion, source and actual observation. Preserve original evidence in the institution's authorised repository. Use only permitted excerpts in an AI surface; do not paste private credentials or unapproved identifiers. Local saving is not evidence custody or permission to disclose to a provider. A proposed test or a completed form cannot stand in for a recorded result.

The audit supervisor decides sufficiency and reliance; the specialist decides matters within their competence and authority. Management validates its own representations and owns corrective action. Management agreement is not the audit reviewer's independent closure decision. Carry-forward remains editable and requires explicit review.

Example completed synthetic excerpt

Responsible-AI-use declaration for auditors proposed use: review synthetic CA records only; confidential extracts held per CA-02/CA-09; provider permissions not inferred from CA-03. AI-use working-paper disclosure hypothetical learner entry, to use only if true for that learner: “No provider used in this exercise; supplied synthetic draft CA-07 reviewed manually; provider/model/execution time not applicable.” This is not a statement about how the Pack was authored. If the learner actually uses an assistant, record that involvement and its known tool/model/date instead. Proposed learner check: compare the five-item claim with CA-05/CA-06 and record corrections after performing that review. No real reviewer signature or reliance decision has been entered. CA-10's local draft retention remains a separate unresolved records matter.

This is an illustrative entry from the bundled fictional case, not work performed on a real organisation. Review dates/decisions shown as proposed must not be represented as real sign-offs.

Limitations

• Does not authorise confidential processing, resolve provider retention or replace institutional retention/custody rules.
• Redacted exports still require inspection; redaction does not guarantee anonymity.
• An AI-use declaration is not compliance certification or professional approval.
• This is a supplied-evidence review aid. It does not perform an audit, issue an audit opinion, establish control effectiveness, certify anything, determine legal compliance or grant professional approval. The authorised audit professional retains judgement and reliance decisions. Use only information permitted for the selected provider; local encrypted storage does not itself authorise provider disclosure.

Related Amo.ng resources

Prompts: AMO-P-000155 — Sensitive Data Handling Checklist for AI Workflows v2.0.1; AMO-P-000149 — Team AI Usage SOP and Review Loop v1.0.1; AMO-P-000071 — Evidence-Grounded AI Output Verification and Release Gate v2.0.0

Workflows: AMO-W-000002 — Vendor Procurement Due Diligence

Skills: AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence

These are complementary methods, not additional proof of the same claim. Read their current source boundaries; open their normal resource pages for the full instructions. Existing resources and their verification status remain unchanged.

Related audit Prompts and Workflow

• AMO-P-000361 exposes scope/data dependencies.
• AMO-W-000044 requires this record alongside final human review.

Use of these resources is subject to the Amo.ng Terms.