本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

audit-follow-up-verify

Guides audit follow-up and verification processes including follow-up scheduling, remediation effectiveness testing, finding closure criteria, re-testing procedures, status reporting, and escalation of unremediated findings. Implements IIA Standard 2500 monitoring requirements and ISO 19011 follow-up guidance for privacy audit engagements. Keywords: audit follow-up, verification testing, finding closure, remediation effectiveness, re-testing, follow-up audit.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(5)

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • assets/template.md3.6 KB
  • references/standards.md3.9 KB
  • references/workflows.md5.4 KB
  • scripts/process.py11.6 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Audit Follow-Up and Verification

Overview

Audit follow-up is the process by which the audit function monitors and verifies that management has effectively implemented remediation actions in response to audit findings. IIA Standard 2500 requires the Chief Audit Executive to establish and maintain a system to monitor the disposition of results communicated to management. Follow-up is not merely tracking whether actions were completed — it requires independent verification that the remediation actually addresses the root cause and reduces the identified risk to an acceptable level.

In privacy audits, effective follow-up is critical because unremediated findings represent ongoing regulatory non-compliance. A GDPR Art. 5(2) accountability failure, an unpatched consent mechanism, or a persistent DSAR processing delay exposes the organization to supervisory authority enforcement, data subject complaints, and reputational harm.

Follow-Up Scheduling

Follow-up timing is driven by finding severity:

SeverityInitial Follow-UpRe-test if PartialMaximum Extensions
Critical30 days after target date15 days1 (requires CPO approval)
High60 days after target date30 days2 (requires DPO approval)
Medium90 days after target date45 days2
Low180 days after target date90 days3
AdvisoryNext scheduled auditN/AN/A

Verification Testing Methods

Re-Performance

The auditor independently repeats the control activity to verify it produces the expected result. Used for procedural controls (e.g., re-performing a DSAR response to verify the process meets the 30-day deadline).

Inspection

The auditor examines records, documents, or system configurations produced after remediation to verify the control is operating as designed. Used for documentary controls (e.g., inspecting updated DPAs for Art. 28 compliance).

Observation

The auditor observes the remediated process in real-time to verify it functions correctly. Used for operational controls (e.g., observing the updated breach notification workflow during a tabletop exercise).

Inquiry and Corroboration

The auditor interviews process owners about the remediated control and corroborates statements with independent evidence. Used when direct testing is impractical.

Data Analytics

The auditor analyzes post-remediation data to verify the control is producing expected outcomes. Used for measurable controls (e.g., analyzing DSAR response times post-remediation to verify improvement).

Closure Criteria

A finding may be closed only when ALL of the following are satisfied:

  1. Remediation actions completed: All planned actions documented as complete by the Remediation Owner
  2. Evidence provided: Remediation Owner provides documentary evidence of completion
  3. Independent verification: Verification Owner (auditor or independent party) confirms effectiveness through testing
  4. Root cause addressed: Verification confirms the underlying root cause is resolved, not just the symptom
  5. Sustainable: The fix is embedded in ongoing processes (not a one-time manual correction)
  6. Documented: Working papers document the verification procedure, evidence reviewed, and conclusion

Finding Status Lifecycle

New → In Progress → Remediation Complete → Pending Verification → Closed
                                                    ↓
                                              Partial Pass → Re-remediation → Pending Verification
                                                    ↓
                                                  Fail → Reopened → Escalation

Escalation for Unremediated Findings

TriggerEscalation LevelAction
Finding overdue 30+ days (Critical)CPO and CISOMandatory management meeting within 5 days
Finding overdue 45+ days (High)Audit CommitteeReport to next Audit Committee meeting
Finding failed verification twiceDPO and CPORoot cause review and revised plan required
Finding open 12+ months (any severity)Board Audit CommitteeInclude in annual audit opinion
Repeated finding (same root cause, 3+ occurrences)Audit CommitteeSystemic issue investigation

Reporting

Individual Finding Follow-Up Report

Produced for each verification event: finding reference, verification method, evidence reviewed, test results, conclusion (pass/partial/fail), and recommended next steps.

Periodic Follow-Up Summary

Monthly report to DPO and CPO summarizing: total open findings by severity, overdue findings, findings closed in period, verification pass rate, aging analysis, and escalation status.

Annual Audit Opinion Impact

Unremediated findings at year-end are factored into the annual audit opinion. Persistent critical or high findings may result in an "Unsatisfactory" or "Needs Improvement" rating.

Integration Points

  • audit-remediation-program: Follow-up verifies the effectiveness of remediation managed by the remediation program
  • audit-evidence-collect: Follow-up requires fresh evidence collection using the same quality standards
  • audit-report-writing: Follow-up results feed into periodic and annual audit reports
  • records-of-processing: Follow-up may verify corrections to ROPA entries

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Implements 42 CFR Part 2 protections for substance use disorder patient records. Covers written consent requirements stricter than HIPAA, re-disclosure prohibition, court order procedures, qualified service organization agreements, and 2024 amendments aligning Part 2 with HIPAA. Keywords: 42 CFR Part 2, substance use disorder, SUD records, re-disclosure, consent, Part 2 amendments.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Guides assessment of third-country adequacy decisions under GDPR Article 45 for international data transfers. Covers the current EC adequacy decisions list, adequacy assessment criteria, partial adequacy handling, and monitoring of adequacy decision reviews. Keywords: adequacy decision, Article 45, third country, adequate protection, EC adequacy list.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements age-gating mechanisms for online services to restrict access based on user age. Covers hard gates versus soft gates, neutral age prompts, re-verification triggers, circumvention prevention, and regulatory requirements under GDPR, COPPA, UK Online Safety Act, and DSA. Keywords: age gate, age restriction, neutral prompt, children, online services, access control.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Evaluates and implements age estimation and verification technologies for online services. Covers facial age estimation, digital ID verification, self-declaration with risk assessment, AI-based age estimation, and the accuracy versus privacy tradeoff. Includes ICO guidance and euCONSENT framework. Keywords: age verification, age estimation, facial analysis, digital ID, children, online safety.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Preparing EU AI Act compliance documentation for high-risk AI systems. Covers Annex III classification, technical documentation under Art. 11, conformity assessment, risk management systems, and CE marking requirements. Keywords: EU AI Act, high-risk AI, Annex III, conformity assessment, CE marking.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

Implements GDPR Art. 22 automated decision-making and AI Act Art. 14 human oversight requirements for AI systems. Covers identification of solely automated decisions, meaningful human intervention design, logic explanation mechanisms, and contestation procedures. Keywords: Art. 22, automated decision, human oversight, AI Act, profiling, contestation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

mukul975/Privacy-Data-Protection-Skills3032026年3月17日 更新

mukul975 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する