Certified: The ISACA AAIA Audio Course

In this episode, we focus on a very practical question: how can auditors use A I to plan audits more effectively while still keeping the most important part of auditing, human judgment, firmly in human hands. Audit planning is where you decide what matters, what you will examine, and how you will use limited time to reduce the most risk. If planning is weak, even a well-executed audit can miss the real issues, because the wrong areas were selected or the scope was not matched to the organization’s reality. A I can help planning by speeding up research, organizing information, and highlighting patterns, but it also creates a temptation to let the A I decide what is important. That temptation is risky because planning choices reflect values, risk appetite, and context that an A I system does not truly own. For beginners, the big idea is simple: A I can help you see more, faster, but it should not be the final voice deciding what to prioritize or what conclusions to draw. By the end, you should understand where A I can add value in planning, where it can mislead, and what habits keep professional judgment from being outsourced.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

Audit planning starts with understanding objectives, meaning what the audit is trying to accomplish and what assurance question it is trying to answer. In an A I context, the objective might be to evaluate governance controls for a specific model, to assess monitoring and incident readiness, or to determine whether risk management aligns with policy. A I can help here by summarizing background materials, like policy statements, system descriptions, prior audit reports, and incident summaries, so the audit team can get up to speed quickly. The benefit is time, especially when the organization has many documents and not enough humans to read them all deeply at the start. The risk is that summaries can hide nuance, omit exceptions, or flatten disagreements between sources, which can matter a lot in audit scope decisions. A good planning workflow uses A I summaries as orientation, then confirms key details by reviewing original sources. This keeps the audit objective grounded in reality rather than in a neat but incomplete narrative.

Risk assessment is the heart of planning, because it drives what you prioritize and what depth of testing you choose. A I can support risk assessment by helping identify potential risk factors, such as high-impact decisions, sensitive data usage, history of incidents, rapid change frequency, or reliance on third-party components. It can also help connect disparate signals, like repeated complaints in support tickets alongside a rise in overrides, suggesting the system may be unstable. However, risk assessment is where judgment is most valuable, because risk is not just a number; it is a combination of likelihood, impact, and organizational context. An A I tool can suggest likely risk areas based on patterns, but it does not know what is materially important to this specific organization unless humans define that importance. Auditors prevent outsourcing judgment by treating A I risk suggestions as hypotheses to be validated, not as priorities to be accepted automatically. The planning decision remains a human decision that can be explained in business terms and defended with evidence.

Scoping is another planning area where A I can help without taking over. Scoping means deciding what systems, processes, time periods, and control areas will be included. A I can help by mapping a complex environment, such as listing the components described across documents, summarizing which teams own which parts, and identifying where responsibilities appear to overlap or be unclear. This mapping can be valuable because unclear ownership is itself a control risk, and it can also create audit blind spots if you do not know who to ask. Still, scope decisions must remain human because scope reflects strategy and constraints. If the audit team has limited time, it may choose to focus on the most critical decision points rather than reviewing every component. A I can offer options, such as suggesting alternative scope cuts, but humans must select and justify the scope based on risk and feasibility. Otherwise, the audit might become either too broad to execute well or too narrow to matter.

Planning also involves defining what evidence you will need and what methods you will use to evaluate controls. A I can help by generating a checklist of evidence types that commonly support certain control claims, such as approval records for deployments, monitoring review logs, incident tickets tied to triggers, access review records, and model version histories. This can help beginner auditors avoid missing obvious evidence categories. The risk is that generic evidence lists can create a false sense that checking the list is enough. In reality, evidence must match the organization’s actual process, and the audit must test whether evidence is reliable and complete, not just whether it exists. A good planning approach uses A I to widen awareness, then adapts the evidence plan to the specific system and the specific risks. Humans decide what evidence is most persuasive for this context and what gaps would indicate control weakness.

Sampling and selection decisions can also be supported by A I, but they require careful handling. If an audit involves reviewing a large set of changes, alerts, or cases, A I can help categorize them, identify clusters, or highlight outliers that deserve attention. This can improve efficiency by steering human review toward items that are more likely to reveal control failures. However, auditors must be cautious because an A I-driven selection process can introduce bias, such as over-focusing on unusual-looking items while ignoring common failures that appear normal. Auditors can prevent this by combining A I-assisted selection with structured sampling logic, such as including both typical cases and edge cases, and ensuring coverage across time periods and risk categories. The key is that A I can help identify candidates, but humans define the selection strategy and confirm that it is balanced and defensible. If asked later why certain items were chosen, the answer must be a human rationale grounded in audit principles, not a vague statement that the tool suggested it.

Another valuable planning use is timeline and dependency management, because audits involve coordinating people, meetings, evidence requests, and review cycles. A I can help draft a practical plan that sequences work, identifies dependencies, and proposes realistic time windows for evidence collection and testing. This can be especially helpful for beginners who underestimate how long it takes to obtain and validate evidence. The risk is that planning can become overly optimistic if the A I assumes ideal cooperation and clean data. Humans keep judgment by adjusting the plan based on organizational reality, such as known bottlenecks, change freezes, staffing limitations, and the sensitivity of certain evidence. A plan is only useful if it can be executed, and execution depends on context A I does not always understand. Auditors keep accountability by making the final plan reflect what they truly believe is achievable and what is necessary for credible assurance.

A I can also support planning through question generation, which means helping auditors craft interview questions, walkthrough prompts, and clarification requests that target the highest-risk areas. Good questions are specific, neutral, and tied to controls, such as asking how deployment gates are enforced, how drift is detected, or how incidents are escalated. A I can help by proposing question sets that cover typical control areas, but humans must refine them to avoid leading language and to align them to the organization’s structure. Another benefit is that A I can suggest follow-up questions based on initial answers, helping auditors probe deeper rather than accepting surface responses. Still, the auditor must choose which questions matter, interpret the answers, and decide what additional evidence is needed. Planning becomes stronger when A I helps expand curiosity, but judgment stays human when auditors decide what to trust and what to test.

A critical control for using A I in planning is documentation of how A I contributions were used and how humans validated them. This does not need to be a long diary, but it does mean being able to explain that A I outputs were used to accelerate orientation, generate options, and organize information, while final decisions were made by auditors using evidence and professional standards. Documentation also includes boundaries, such as avoiding sensitive data exposure during planning and ensuring that any A I-generated materials are reviewed for accuracy before being used. Another control is review by a senior auditor or quality reviewer who checks that the plan reflects risk reality and does not simply mirror generic templates. This review helps prevent overreliance because it forces a human check on whether the plan is coherent, feasible, and focused on what matters. Planning is the foundation of the audit, so it deserves this extra attention when new tools are introduced.

It is also helpful to recognize that A I can influence thinking through framing, even when it is not making decisions. If the A I repeatedly highlights certain risks, auditors may anchor on those risks and neglect others. If it presents an organized narrative early, auditors may become less likely to challenge that narrative. To prevent this, auditors can deliberately seek alternative frames, such as asking what risks might be underemphasized, what evidence could contradict the initial picture, and what blind spots exist due to limited visibility. Auditors can also compare A I outputs to independent sources, such as prior audit findings, incident trends, and stakeholder interviews, to see whether the story aligns. This protects judgment by keeping the audit plan dynamic and evidence-driven rather than tool-driven. For beginners, the key takeaway is that planning is not only logistics; it is the shaping of attention, and attention must be managed carefully.

Utilizing A I to enhance audit planning without outsourcing judgment means using A I for what it is good at, speed, organization, and pattern surfacing, while reserving prioritization and conclusions for humans. A I can help summarize background material, map environments, propose evidence categories, generate interview questions, and suggest ways to structure the work. But audit judgment remains human because risk is contextual, scope is strategic, and evidence standards require accountability and explainability. Strong planning combines A I-assisted efficiency with disciplined validation, balanced selection strategies, careful data handling, and clear documentation of how decisions were made. When done well, A I makes planning faster and more informed without turning it into an automated exercise. The result is an audit plan that is both practical and defensible, and that is the combination that leads to real assurance rather than a rushed checklist.