TOS016
Establish documented role boundaries before advisory work begins so IIA independence requirements and self-review prohibitions are demonstrably preserved.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction TOS016 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Assurance vs Advisory Roles
Business ContextAudit functions can provide valuable advice on governance, controls, risk, transformation, and process design because of their enterprise perspective. Extensive advisory involvement can create self-review threats when audit later provides assurance over decisions or systems it helped design.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionSeparate advisory insight from management ownership and subsequent assurance responsibility. Audit may identify risks, challenge assumptions, explain control implications, and evaluate alternatives while management retains responsibility for design, selection, implementation, and operation.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 1 – Segmentation separates advisory participation from independent assurance responsibilities.
Principle 2 – Taking Out removes audit ownership of management decisions and control design.
Principle 24 – Intermediary establishes governance boundaries for advisory participation.
Expected Outcome
Greater advisory contribution
Preserved assurance independence
Clearer management accountability
Reduced self-review risk
Decision Indicators
Audit designs controls it later evaluates.
Management treats audit recommendations as formal approvals.
Advisory projects have no defined independence safeguards.
Audit avoids useful advisory activity because role boundaries are unclear.
Governance cannot determine who owned decisions made during advisory work.