# 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.

| Field | Definition / professional purpose | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Record ID and objective | Local working-paper reference and the decision/question this record supports; not a newly assigned AMO ID | — |
| System/process and period | Exact unit, system baseline and period examined; bounds the conclusion | — |
| Source register | Evidence ID; permitted locator; version/date; source owner; date obtained; scope/access limitation. A cited document not inspected stays “not inspected” | — |
| Preparer and work state | Responsible preparer role; date; distinguish proposed, performed and supplied third-party work | — |
| Reviewer decision | Reviewer identity/reference and authority; date; exact record/version reviewed; decision ID and rationale; restrictions. Leave unrecorded until a person decides | — |
| Unresolved matter / follow-up | Missing or conflicting evidence; affected decision; next request/action; owner/date only if supplied | — |
| Approved carry-forward | Exact edited material authorised for the next activity, linked to review decision and remaining limitations; no automatic approval | — |

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

| Field | Definition / purpose | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| System/use reference | Stable organisation-supplied identifier and intended purpose; unknown inventory coverage remains explicit. | — |
| Owner and lifecycle | Accountable role, operational stage and source of each statement. | — |
| Model/vendor/data dependencies | Named components, version where known, data categories and dependency evidence IDs; no secrets. | — |
| Users and permitted actions | Affected users and actual or proposed actions; distinguish intended design from effective capability. | — |
| Boundary and interfaces | Inputs, outputs, connected systems and in/out-of-scope components. | — |
| Baseline and gaps | Approved versus observed version/configuration; unknown items and evidence needed. | — |

**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

| Field | Definition / purpose | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Use and affected parties | Specific use, users and decision/action affected. | — |
| Criteria source | Organisation-supplied risk taxonomy, version and authority; absent criteria stay absent. | — |
| Risk scenario and evidence | What could go wrong and what actually supports the scenario; separate observed event from hypothesis. | — |
| Classification and rationale | Supplied rating or proposed classification explicitly labelled with rationale and uncertainty; do not invent a scale. | — |
| Controls and dependencies | Linked control-and-evidence working paper/vendor/operational workbook control references; design description is not operating evidence. | — |
| Applicability question | Separate legal/sector applicability question and responsible specialist, only where needed; no inferred statutory classification. | — |
| Decision needed | Authorised risk owner decision and any unresolved evidence before reliance. | — |

**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

| Field | Definition / purpose | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Mandate and independence | Source of engagement authority and independence/conflict review; distinguish proposed scope from authorised work. | — |
| Objective / risk / criterion | Each supplied audit objective with risk linkage and applicable criterion source. | — |
| Coverage period and exclusions | Entities, systems, processes, populations and time; exclusion rationale and effect. | — |
| Evidence strategy | Question, required record, expected provenance and intended procedure; link evidence requests. | — |
| Feasibility and dependencies | Access, skill/specialist, time and resource constraints; commitments only if supplied. | — |
| Data-use boundary | Permitted data and provider/surface decision; link AI-use record instead of duplicating sensitive detail. | — |
| Supervisor handoff | Proposed plan changes, blockers and actual approval decision or pending state. | — |

**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

| Field | Definition / purpose | Entry |
|---|---|---|
| Request / objective reference | A precise requested artefact and the question it is needed to answer. | — |
| Owner and period | Custodian if known; period/version required to make the evidence relevant. | — |
| Minimum necessary content | Fields/excerpts needed and minimisation requirements; do not request credentials. | — |
| Transfer and authority | Permitted access/transfer method under institutional policy; approval dependency, not an invented URL. | — |
| Due condition and response | Agreed date/trigger only if supplied; received/partial/unavailable, with response reference. | — |
| Adequacy / next decision | What the received item supports, its limit and whether a narrower request or supervisor decision is needed. | — |

**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

| View | Synthetic completed entry |
|---|---|
| AI system inventory | Aster-17 central equipment release queue; September scope; regional/emergency/amendment exclusions per CA-01; complete system inventory not supplied |
| AI risk classification worksheet | Potential reliance on incomplete authorisation evidence; no organisational risk taxonomy supplied; no rating assigned |
| AI audit planning memo | Objective: examine prior authorisation per CA-04 clause 2; CA-01's all-controls sentence exceeds supplied scope; supervisor limits work per CA-09 |
| AI evidence request list | Request population reconciliation and exception procedure; custodian role per CA-05; date obtained for existing extracts: 7 October; next-request due date not agreed |

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](https://amo.ng/prompts/shadow-ai-risk-assessment-business) v2.0.0; [AMO-P-000194 — Internal SOP Gap and Control Mapping Brief](https://amo.ng/prompts/internal-sop-gap-control-mapping-brief) v1.0.0; [AMO-P-000155 — Sensitive Data Handling Checklist for AI Workflows](https://amo.ng/prompts/sensitive-data-handling-checklist-ai-workflows) v2.0.1

**Workflows:** [AMO-W-000002 — Vendor Procurement Due Diligence](https://amo.ng/workflows/vendor-procurement-due-diligence); [AMO-W-000016 — Assess Enterprise Knowledge and RAG Readiness](https://amo.ng/workflows/enterprise-knowledge-and-rag-readiness-review)

**Skills:** [AMO-S-000016 — Trace Consequential Claims to Original Evidence](https://amo.ng/skills/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](https://amo.ng/prompts/challenge-internal-audit-engagement-scope-evidence-plan) challenges the planning memo.
- [AMO-W-000044](https://amo.ng/workflows/evidence-controlled-internal-audit-working-paper) uses the reviewed scope and request register before analysis.

Use of these resources is subject to the [Amo.ng Terms](https://amo.ng/terms).