ARQUA • Architecture in Practice • Context Library • Request a Briefing
Context
In regulated organisations, audit and review functions are treated as core governance mechanisms. They are assumed to provide assurance that decisions were correct, compliant, and defensible.
In practice, audit and review often operate as retrospective authority reconstruction systems.
They exist because authority was not explicit, coherent, or machine-expressible at the time decisions were made.
The Condition
Audit and review environments typically exhibit:
- High volumes of post-transaction assessment
- Reliance on artefacts created after the decision
- Reconstruction of intent, context, and justification
- Interpretation of policy long after execution
- Disagreement between reviewers and operators
- Escalation when meaning cannot be resolved
As decision volume and complexity increase, audit effort grows disproportionately.
This growth is not driven by misconduct or failure.
It is driven by missing authority at decision time.
Why Audit Becomes Overloaded
Most organisations assume that audit exists to detect error.
In reality, audit is required because:
- Policy meaning was implicit
- Decision context was fragmented
- Authority was assumed, not expressed
- Justification had to be assembled after the fact
Audit teams are asked to answer questions such as:
- Was this decision permitted under policy at the time?
- Which interpretation applied in this context?
- Was discretion exercised appropriately?
These questions cannot be answered efficiently when authority is reconstructed retrospectively.
The Reconstruction Problem
In most regulated systems:
- Authority is defined in legislation, policy, and guidance
- Decisions occur in operational systems
- Meaning is captured partially, inconsistently, or not at all
As a result, audit and review rely on:
- Logs without context
- Documents without interpretation
- Outcomes without explicit rationale
Review then becomes an exercise in re-inferring permission rather than verifying execution.
This introduces delay, cost, and disagreement — even when decisions were reasonable.
Why Existing Controls Are Insufficient
Common responses to audit overload include:
- Additional documentation requirements
- Increased review sampling
- More detailed guidance and training
- Expanded escalation pathways
These controls increase effort after the decision, but do not change the underlying condition.
They assume authority can be reconstructed reliably after execution.
At scale, this assumption fails.
How SCIA Applies
SCIA addresses this condition by shifting authority expression before execution, rather than after.
In audit and review contexts, SCIA enables:
- Explicit policy context at decision time
- Clear articulation of applicable rules and exceptions
- Indication of ambiguity and discretion
- A trace of meaning captured as the decision occurred
This does not remove the need for audit.
It changes the nature of audit from reconstruction to verification.
What Changes
- Audit effort focuses on deviations, not interpretation
- Review time is reduced for routine decisions
- Disagreement between operators and reviewers decreases
- Justification is available without inference
What Does Not Change
- Audit independence is preserved
- Human accountability remains
- Regulatory obligations are unchanged
- Review authority is not delegated
When This Context Applies
This context is relevant where organisations experience:
- Increasing audit or review workload
- Disputes between decision-makers and reviewers
- Difficulty explaining decisions retrospectively
- High cost of assurance relative to transaction value
- Growing scrutiny of decision justification
Why This Matters
As organisations increase automation and decision velocity, post-hoc controls become less effective.
Audit cannot scale indefinitely as a substitute for explicit authority.
Without a way to express permission at the time of action, assurance effort will continue to grow faster than decision volume.
SCIA Perspective
SCIA treats audit and review as symptoms of missing authority coherence, not as failures of oversight.
By making authority explicit before execution, organisations reduce the need to reconstruct meaning later — while preserving accountability, independence, and trust.
Related contexts
- Claims & Disputes as an Authority Coherence Problem
- When Governance Is No Longer Enough
- Escalation as a Symptom of Missing Authority
- Authority Before Action as a Structural Constraint
© Arqua Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.