FRR016
Charter must explicitly prohibit audit from designing corrective actions while requiring audit to independently validate closure evidence before issues are formally closed.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction FRR016 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Management Ownership vs Audit Oversight
Business ContextManagement must own corrective action because operational risks and controls remain management responsibilities. Audit nevertheless needs sufficient oversight to determine whether findings are being addressed appropriately and whether reported progress is reliable.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionSeparate remediation ownership from independent monitoring. Management designs and implements corrective actions, while audit defines validation expectations, monitors significant milestones, challenges inadequate responses, and independently assesses closure where necessary.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 2 – Taking Out removes operational remediation responsibility from the audit function.
Principle 23 – Feedback uses remediation progress and evidence to determine when additional audit attention is required.
Principle 24 – Intermediary uses formal issue-management mechanisms between management action and audit oversight.
Expected Outcome
Stronger management accountability
Preserved audit independence
Better remediation visibility
Reduced audit involvement in management responsibilities
Decision Indicators
Audit teams design corrective actions for management.
Management waits for audit direction before progressing remediation.
Audit has insufficient visibility into significant overdue actions.
Responsibility for remediation becomes unclear.
Issue closure depends on continuous auditor involvement.