Best Way for Auditors to Assess Automated Control Design?
Which of the following is the BEST way for an IS auditor to assess the design of an automated application control?
Community Votes
62% of anonymous learners picked answer C. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
Tests the critical audit distinction between design assessment (documentation review) and effectiveness testing (configuration/output inspection), with the common trap being confusion over when to validate architecture versus operation.
IS auditors must distinguish between evaluating control design and testing operating effectiveness. While configuration reviews verify runtime behavior, reviewing implementation documentation remains the definitive method for validating that automated controls were properly architected to meet business requirements.
Option C is frequently selected because auditors naturally want to verify that controls actually function, but reviewing configurations and outputs tests operating effectiveness rather than the initial design phase.
Community Discussion (4 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Assessing the design of an automated application control requires examining the foundational specifications before deployment. Implementation documents detail the control logic, validation rules, thresholds, and error-handling procedures that define how the system should behave. By reviewing these artifacts, auditors can objectively verify that the control was engineered to mitigate identified risks and comply with organizational policies.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Interviewing developers (A) provides subjective insights but lacks the formal, auditable evidence required for a design assessment. Management attestation (B) represents executive opinion rather than independent verification of technical specifications. Reviewing system configuration parameters and output (C) validates operating effectiveness and runtime performance, which belongs to the subsequent testing phase after design approval.Community Comment Notes
The vote split reflects a common knowledge gap between design validation and operational testing. Users supporting option C often conflate verifying that a control works with verifying how it was designed, as noted in comment [1] where checking parameters is mistakenly linked to design assurance. Those favoring option D correctly emphasize that architectural validation precedes functional testing, aligning with ISACA's phased audit methodology outlined in comments [2] and [4].Official Reference
Exam Strategy
Always map the audit objective keyword directly to the verification technique: 'design' or 'architecture' requires documentation review, while 'effectiveness,' 'operation,' or 'execution' demands configuration checks, log analysis, or reperformance. Memorizing this mapping prevents time loss on highly similar scenario questions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why isn't reviewing configuration parameters correct for design assessment?
Configuration reviews validate operating effectiveness and runtime behavior, not the original architectural design or control specifications.
When should an auditor interview developers instead of reviewing documents?
Interviews supplement documentation reviews to clarify ambiguities but lack the objective, auditable evidence required for formal design assessment.
Related Analysis
Practice All CISA Questions
Access 400 questions with complete answers and detailed explanations.
View Full CISA Practice Test →