Back to Our Work
|
Finance

Finance: Internal Audit AI Agents

1. Problem

1a. Statement

Traditional internal audit processes rely on sample-based testing, reviewing only 5-10% of transactions and missing systemic issues that only emerge across entire populations. A Big Four accounting firm faced mounting pressure as clients demanded faster audits with greater coverage, while experienced auditors spent 60% of their time on repetitive documentation tasks. With SOX compliance deadlines, ITGC reviews, and accounts payable/receivable audits requiring verifiable workpapers, the firm needed AI agents capable of testing entire transaction populations while maintaining the auditability standards required for regulatory submissions.

1b. Client Profile
TypeBig Four Accounting Firm
IndustryFinance
SizeEnterprise
RegionCalifornia, United States
Users1200+
1c. Motivation
Audit Partners
Sample-based testing misses systemic issues across populations
Senior Auditors
60% of time spent on documentation instead of analysis
Staff Auditors
Repetitive testing across ITGC, SOX, AP, AR workstreams
Clients
Audit timelines of 8-12 weeks impacting quarterly close
Quality Assurance
Inconsistent workpaper formats across engagement teams
Regulators
Require verifiable, auditable outputs for all conclusions

2. Analysis

2a. Requirements

The platform required specialized AI agents for each audit domain: SOX internal controls testing, ITGC reviews covering access management and change controls, accounts payable duplicate payment detection, and accounts receivable aging analysis. Each agent needed to process entire transaction populations rather than samples, applying rule-based checks augmented by LLM-as-a-judge patterns for nuanced policy interpretation. RAG pipelines enabled agents to retrieve relevant accounting standards, client policies, and prior year workpapers for context. Human-in-the-loop workflows routed exceptions and edge cases to senior auditors, while all outputs generated structured workpapers meeting regulatory documentation standards. The system required complete audit trails showing reasoning chains from source data through conclusions.

2b. Constraints
Compliance:PCAOB and SEC standards for audit documentation
Auditability:Complete reasoning trails for every conclusion
Scale:Process millions of transactions per engagement
Integration:Connect to client ERP systems including SAP, Oracle, NetSuite
Security:SOC 2 Type II and client data isolation requirements
Accuracy:False positive rates below 5% to maintain auditor trust

3. Solution

3a. Architecture
3b. Implementation
Discovery
8 weeks
Development
28 weeks
Integration
12 weeks
Deployment
6 weeks

4. Result

4a. DUBEScore™
4.5/5
D - Delivery4.5
U - Utility4.4
B - Business4.7
E - Endurance4.3
4b. Outcomes
Population coverage100% vs 5-10%
Audit cycle time-45%
Documentation time-65%
Exception detection rate+180%
Workpaper consistency98%
Auditors using platform1200+
4c. Learnings
1

LLM-as-a-judge confidence thresholds required calibration per audit domain. SOX controls needed tighter thresholds than AP testing.

2

Workpaper templates evolved through three iterations based on QA feedback. Involve quality reviewers early in design.

3

Client ERP data extraction was the longest integration phase. Standardize connectors for top 5 ERP systems upfront.

Ready to Build Your AI Solution?

Let's discuss how we can deliver similar results for your organization.