Sponsored by
Hello everyone,
I’m Tim Buckley, and this is the weekly Beyond the Lines™ newsletter.
Beyond the Lines™ is an internal-audit-led platform for people working across audit, risk, controls, governance and culture who want to turn insight into better decisions, clearer ownership and stronger outcomes in a Human + AI world.
Less control theatre. More decisions, ownership and outcomes.
Save the date and register
Before we jump into this week’s issue, a quick invitation.
The next Beyond the Lines™ Leadership Signals session is now open for registration.
I’ll be joined by Rania Bejjani, CEO & Founder of RB Advisory & Consultancy | Governance, Internal Audit & Risk Management, and host of the Impact Legacy with Rania podcast to discuss:
Influence without authority: how audit and risk actually get decisions made
Audit and risk rarely struggle because they lack insight. They struggle because insight does not always turn into action.
We’ll explore why strong findings do not always land, how credibility and relationships shape whether something changes, and how audit and risk professionals can influence outcomes when they do not own the hierarchy.
This is not a session about sounding more confident in meetings. It is about the practical leadership mechanics that determine whether good work turns into action.
Internal Audit Awareness Month: What Audit Could Become in a Human + AI World
May is Internal Audit Awareness Month.
That matters. The profession should be more visible, better understood and taken more seriously inside organisations where risk, control, governance, culture, technology and commercial decision-making are becoming increasingly connected.
But visibility is not the same as value.
The bigger question is not whether people know internal audit exists. In most organisations, they do.
The bigger question is whether internal audit is experienced as a function that helps the business make better decisions.
That’s where I think the real opportunity sits.
Internal Audit Awareness Month should not just be about explaining what internal audit does. It should be about showing what internal audit could become.
More decision-ready.
More influential.
More useful before the issue becomes a failure.
More confident in a Human + AI world.
And much better at turning insight into decisions, ownership and outcomes.
This week, I want to bring together four practical ideas:
the Audit Influence Chain
the Strategic Audit Test
the AI Confidence Review Playbook
the question of whether a CAE could become a credible AI-era leader
Because all four point to the same thing. The future of internal audit will not be defined by better reports alone. It will be defined by whether audit can help organisations make better decisions.
Audit value is not created when the report is issued
For a long time, internal audit has treated the report as the main output.
Better executive summaries. Better issue ratings. Better wording. Better committee papers. Better formatting.
All of that has value. But none of it matters much if the insight does not change what happens next.
That is why I think audit leaders need to think less about the report as the end product and more about the chain of influence that sits around it.
A finding can be accurate and still fail to create impact. A report can be well written and still fail to move behaviour. An issue can be accepted and still not be meaningfully owned.
That is where audit value leaks.
A useful way to test this is what I call the Audit Influence Chain.
It has six links.
First, insight. What have we learned that changes the risk picture? If the finding is accurate but not commercially meaningful, the chain is already weak.
Second, translation. Can leaders understand the consequence in plain business language? If the report describes the issue but not why it matters, the work may be technically sound but practically weak.
Third, conversation. Who needs to be challenged, aligned or influenced before committee?If the first real debate happens in the audit committee, audit has probably entered the influence conversation too late.
Fourth, decision. What decision should this insight inform? If the finding is accepted but nothing changes, audit has created agreement, not impact.
Fifth, ownership. Who owns the outcome, not just the action? If the action is assigned but accountability is vague, the issue will often drift.
Sixth, follow-through. What would prove the risk has actually reduced? If closure is based on paperwork rather than changed behaviour, audit may be measuring completion rather than value.
This is where the profession has to be honest with itself.
Internal audit does not create value because the report was issued.
It creates value when the insight changes a decision, clarifies ownership or improves an outcome.
That is a different standard. And it’s the standard the best audit functions are already moving towards.
Strategic internal audit is about decision proximity
“Internal audit needs to be more strategic” is one of those phrases that sounds right, but is often poorly defined.
Sometimes it means broader audit topics. Sometimes it means more senior stakeholders. Sometimes it means longer reports with more executive language. Sometimes it just means the audit plan sounds more impressive than it really is.
But strategic internal audit is much more practical than that. Strategic internal audit is about decision proximity.
How close is audit to the decisions that shape risk, performance, transformation and trust?
That is the real test.
A function can be highly professional, technically strong and well respected, but still too far away from the decisions that matter.
A report can go to the audit committee and still fail to influence management behaviour.
An audit can be well evidenced and still land after the real choices have already been made.
So I would use four tests.
Relevance: are we auditing the decisions that actually matter?
Not just the processes we know well. Not just the controls that are easiest to test. Not just the areas with neat evidence trails.
The question is whether the work is connected to decisions with real consequence.
Timing: are we close enough to influence before the decision hardens?
If audit arrives after design, launch or implementation, it may still provide assurance, but it has probably missed the opportunity to shape confidence earlier.
This matters especially in transformation, AI adoption, operating model change, third-party arrangements and major control redesign.
Influence: are we helping leaders understand trade-offs, not just control gaps?
Strategic audit is not just about saying what is wrong.
It is about helping leaders see the consequence of different choices.
What happens if we accept this risk?
What would need to be true for this decision to be safe?
Where does ownership sit?
What would give the board confidence?
Outcome: can we prove anything meaningful changed?
A closed action is not the same as an improved outcome.
A revised policy is not the same as changed behaviour.
A management response is not the same as management ownership.
This is where audit functions need to push harder.
Because the truth is that a lot of audit work is technically good but strategically distant.
It is accurate. It is evidenced. It is well documented. But it lands too late, too far from the decision, or too disconnected from ownership.
If audit is too far from the decision, it is too far from the value.
Where audit value leaks between insight and action
To make this more practical, I’ve created a free Beyond the Lines™ resource called The Internal Audit Value Leakage Map. It turns the ideas in this issue into a simple diagnostic you can use with your team.
It is designed to help audit, risk and controls leaders diagnose where audit impact disappears between insight and action.
Because value leakage rarely happens in one obvious place.
It can leak in planning, when work is scoped around activity rather than decisions.
It can leak in fieldwork, when evidence is gathered but the consequence is not clear enough.
It can leak in reporting, when the message is technically accurate but not decision-ready.
It can leak in governance, when an issue is discussed but not truly owned.
It can leak in remediation, when actions close but behaviours do not change.
It can leak in follow-up, when audit checks completion rather than outcome.
The map is a practical way to ask:
Where are we losing value?
Where does ownership blur?
Where are findings accepted but not acted on meaningfully?
Where are we measuring activity instead of impact?
Where are we producing assurance without changing the conversation?
You can access the free Internal Audit Value Leakage Map here:
AI raises the bar for internal audit leadership
AI makes all of this more urgent.
It is easy to treat AI as a productivity topic for audit. And yes, there are obvious opportunities there. AI can support drafting, summarising, analysing, comparing, searching, structuring and documenting. But that’s only one part of the story.
AI is also changing the expectations placed on organisations around speed, evidence, accountability, governance and judgement.
Teams are experimenting. Vendors are selling. Executives are asking for productivity gains. Boards want confidence. And governance often has to catch up while the organisation is already moving.
This is where internal audit has an opportunity, but it needs to avoid two traps.
The first trap is becoming the AI police. If audit’s role is only to say “be careful”, it will be pushed to the side.
The second trap is becoming an AI cheerleader without enough discipline. If audit only focuses on speed and ignores evidence, ownership, judgement and defensibility, it risks weakening the very things it exists to protect.
The better role is to help the organisation adopt AI with confidence. Not by owning AI. Not by blocking progress. Not by writing a policy that nobody reads.
But by asking:
What would need to be true for this to be safe, useful and defensible?
That question is practical. It doesn’t start with fear. It doesn’t start with hype. It starts with judgement.
I would use five review zones.
Use case clarity: what decision, process or task is AI supporting?
A good use case has a clear purpose, defined limits and a named owner. A weak one exists because AI is available, not because it solves a real problem.
Human judgement: where does human review, challenge or sign-off remain?
Good AI adoption keeps humans involved at the right points. Weak adoption lets AI output quietly become the decision by default.
Data and evidence: what data is used and what evidence is retained?
If source data, prompts, outputs and decisions are traceable, the organisation has a stronger basis for confidence. If there is no audit trail, defensibility becomes much harder.
Accountability: who owns errors, escalation and consequences?
This is often where AI governance becomes vague. Everyone uses the tool, but nobody owns the risk.
Board confidence: what would we tell the board if challenged?
If AI activity is happening below the visibility of governance, the organisation may have more exposure than it realises.
This is where internal audit can lead without trying to control everything. It can help the organisation move faster without losing judgement. And in a Human + AI world, that may become one of the most valuable roles internal audit can play.
Could a CAE become a Chief AI Officer?
This brings us to the more provocative question. Could a CAE become a Chief AI Officer?
I am not saying every CAE should become a CAIO. That would be too simplistic.
AI leadership needs commercial understanding, data literacy, technology curiosity, operating model thinking, change leadership and the ability to enable progress.
But the question is still worth asking.
Because when you look at what AI leadership actually requires, some of the capabilities already sit close to the best internal audit leaders.
Governance judgement.
Evidence discipline.
Board communication.
Cross-functional influence.
Control environment thinking.
The ability to challenge without losing the room.
The ability to see how accountability, behaviour and decision-making interact.
Those are not minor skills in an AI-enabled organisation. They are central.
But there is a catch. A CAE cannot become an AI-era leader by staying in an assurance-only mindset.
They need to move from reviewing governance to shaping governance mechanics.
They need to understand data, model outputs, prompts and evidence trails.
They need to speak in business outcomes, not assurance language.
They need to enable progress, not just challenge weakness.
They need to balance speed, experimentation and accountability.
That is the shift. The future CAE is not just a better auditor. They’re a board-trusted enterprise leader with audit discipline. And that discipline could become much more valuable in the AI era than many people realise.
Questions to take into your next audit team discussion
If you are using Internal Audit Awareness Month to think about the future of your function, these questions are worth taking into your next team meeting.
Where does audit value most often leak between insight and action?
Are we close enough to the decisions that shape risk, performance, transformation and trust?
Which findings are accepted but do not lead to meaningful change?
Where does ownership blur after an action is agreed?
Where are we measuring closure rather than risk reduction?
How are we using AI to improve judgement, not just speed?
What would prove our work mattered six months from now?
Would the board see our function as a reporting function or a decision-enabling function?
These are better questions than simply asking whether audit is visible enough.
Visibility matters.
But usefulness matters more.
Closing note
Internal Audit Awareness Month should not just celebrate the profession as it exists today. It should challenge us to build the version of internal audit the future will need.
A function that does not stop at the report.
A function that understands decision proximity.
A function that helps organisations adopt AI without losing judgement.
A function that turns insight into decisions, ownership and outcomes.
That is the version of internal audit worth building.
And that is the conversation Beyond the Lines™ will keep pushing forward.
Thanks for reading.
Best,
Founder Beyond the Lines™ | Integral Assurance
Useful links
Access the free Internal Audit Value Leakage Map
Diagnose where audit value leaks between insight and action.
Register for the next Beyond the Lines™ Leadership Signals session
Influence without authority: how audit and risk actually get decisions made.
Share Beyond the Lines with a colleague
If this helped you think differently about internal audit leadership, forward it to one audit, risk or controls colleague who would value it.
Forget the hype. Here's what's actually working in AI.
90% of AI content is noise. The AI Report is the 10%.
We cover real enterprise deployments, actual business outcomes, and the AI strategies leaders are betting on right now — not lab experiments, not demos, not speculation.
400,000+ executives, operators, and founders read us every weekday to cut through the clutter and make faster, smarter decisions about AI before their competitors do.
No hype. No fluff. Just the signal.
See what's actually working in AI across every industry right now — free, in 5 minutes a day.