Auditsthat

Auditsthat is a term found in limited professional discussions to describe a class of activities that audit or verify the audits themselves. It refers to meta-audits—evaluations of audit processes, evidence quality, and the logic by which conclusions are drawn. The term is not part of formal standards and is not widely standardized across industries; usage varies by organization and practitioner.

In practice, auditsthat aim to improve audit quality by increasing traceability and accountability. Core objectives include ensuring the audit evidence supports conclusions, verifying the independence and objectivity of the auditors, and confirming that remediation actions are properly tracked. Typical activities include reviewing workpapers, testing data integrity, checking alignment between findings and evidence, and cross-checking management responses with closure status. In information technology, it may involve validating logs, access controls, and configuration changes against defined criteria.

Methodologically, auditsthat blends traditional audit techniques with meta-level quality assurance. It often uses risk-based sampling, control testing, and root-cause analysis to determine whether an audit itself followed approved methodologies. Practitioners emphasize traceability, documentation completeness, and audit trail quality to support governance and assurance objectives.

Applications and limitations. Some organizations adopt auditsthat as part of internal quality assurance programs or regulatory preparedness. Challenges include potential scope creep, higher resource demands, and ambiguity about its scope with standard audits. Clear definitions, governance approval, and alignment with existing frameworks are essential for consistent practice.