Continuous Assurance Current-State Assessment in Banking: Designing an Evidence Operating System

At a Glance

Describes a continuous assurance current state assessment for banks that evaluates control design, data integrity, automation, monitoring, and governance to identify gaps, reduce manual risk, strengthen audit readiness, and embed real-time oversight into operations.

Why audit-ready current-state assessments have shifted to an always-on posture

For banks in 2026, audit readiness is increasingly measured by time-to-evidence, not by the quality of slideware assembled weeks before an exam. A current-state assessment that is audit-ready evaluates whether the institution can demonstrate compliance on demand by identifying gaps in controls, documentation, and data integrity before supervisory reviews and financial audits begin. The practical objective is an objective baseline: what is actually controlled, what is merely asserted, and where evidence breaks under pressure.

This shift is being reinforced by regimes that raise expectations for operational resilience and technology governance. DORA has been in application since January 17, 2025, pushing financial entities toward tested ICT resilience and tighter third-party oversight. EU AI Act timelines bring additional requirements, with the majority of rules coming into application and enforcement starting on August 2, 2026, including high-risk system requirements and transparency obligations that affect how banks evidence oversight of automated tasks and models.

Audit readiness as a strategy validation mechanism

Executives typically fund multi-year modernization and AI programs on assumptions about delivery capacity, control maturity, and data reliability. An audit-ready current-state baseline pressure-tests those assumptions. If the bank cannot produce traceable evidence for critical controls, vendor resilience, or valuation-relevant data within defined timeboxes, then strategy is outrunning capability, and prioritization needs to shift toward foundational remediation before scale.

Key pillars of banking audit readiness in 2026

An always-on posture depends on a small set of pillars that auditors and supervisors repeatedly test, regardless of jurisdiction: governance accountability, technology and AI governance, third-party risk, and data integrity. Weakness in any one pillar tends to cascade because evidence chains cross domains (for example, cloud resilience evidence depends on vendor contract terms, operational testing, and data logging quality).

Governance and leadership oversight

Auditors increasingly prioritize active governance: board-level accountability for technology risks, clear risk appetite statements that translate to operational thresholds, and dashboards that make control gaps visible without manual compilation. The governance test is not whether committees exist, but whether decisions are being made with timely, trusted information and whether ownership is unambiguous when gaps appear.

Technology and AI governance

As agentic AI patterns expand into operations and decision support, assessments must verify transparency, bias prevention, and the points where human intervention is required and demonstrably exercised. The audit risk is not “AI exists,” but that models and automated workflows operate without adequate traceability, monitoring, and change control, creating an evidence vacuum when questions arise about decisions, controls, or customer outcomes.

Third-party and vendor risk

Banks are increasingly evaluated based on the compliance and resilience of their extensions: fintech partners, SaaS providers, and cloud platforms. A readiness assessment should include a complete inventory of critical vendors, documented due diligence, and contract terms that support oversight, including right-to-audit provisions where appropriate. The strategic implication is that cloud and platform strategies must be validated against exit feasibility and concentration risk tolerance, not only against cost and feature velocity.

Data integrity and lineage

Regulators and auditors are placing more emphasis on live data interrogation and rapid evidence production under tight timelines. A readiness assessment should confirm that the bank can demonstrate lineage (where the numbers come from), reconcile source-to-reporting transformations, and produce valuation-ready data within defined windows (often framed internally as 24-hour response expectations for prioritized evidence packs). Where lineage is incomplete, remediation often becomes the highest-leverage investment because it reduces audit friction while improving control automation and analytics reliability.

Step-by-step framework for an audit-ready assessment baseline

An audit-ready current-state assessment should follow a structured evaluation flow that produces artifacts usable by technology, risk, compliance, and internal audit. The point is not to create an additional compliance program, but to operationalize evidence production as a standard operating capability.

Phase 1: Pre-planning and scoping

Identify applicable frameworks and obligations and define systems, processes, and third parties in scope. In 2026, this often spans financial reporting controls (for example, SOX-type expectations where relevant), operational resilience obligations (such as DORA for EU-linked entities), and financial crime controls (including AML/CFT requirements). Scoping should be explicit about what is excluded and why, because exclusions become audit findings when they intersect with critical services.

Phase 2: Internal control assessment

Evaluate whether controls are embedded in daily workflows and supported by consistent evidence trails. Align testing to established control framework concepts (for example, COSO components such as control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring). The maturity test is whether controls are automated and monitored, or manually performed and recorded inconsistently across teams.

Phase 3: Evidence and documentation review

Centralize audit artifacts into a governed repository with retention, access control, and version history. Prioritize artifacts that are repeatedly requested: approvals, change records, logging and monitoring outputs, incident postmortems, and oversight minutes. Policies should be current, mapped to controls, and demonstrably communicated, because “policy exists” is not evidence that the policy is operating.

Phase 4: Gap identification and high-pressure dry runs

Conduct scenario-based exercises that test response speed and data accuracy, such as cyber incidents, liquidity stress, or material third-party outages. The purpose is to validate end-to-end evidence chains under realistic constraints: can the bank prove what happened, what controls operated, what decisions were made, and how data integrity was maintained?

Phase 5: Remediation and reporting

Assign owners and deadlines for findings and report progress in a way that preserves comparability over time. Prioritize high-risk gaps that create compounding exposure, such as weak evidence trails for privileged access, incomplete vendor oversight for critical services, or inconsistent AML/KYC control execution. Closure should be validated through independent testing to avoid “paper remediation” that fails on the next examination cycle.

Common 2026 audit findings that undermine baseline credibility

Recurring findings tend to cluster around ownership ambiguity, stale documentation, manual control fragility, and third-party concentration. These are not simply compliance issues; they reveal that the operating model cannot reliably execute the strategy that leadership has endorsed.

Inconsistent ownership transparency

Discrepancies between beneficial ownership records and transaction behavior, unclear accountability for data domains, and fragmented responsibility for third-party controls create audit risk that is hard to remediate quickly because it reflects structural governance weaknesses.

Stale policies and uncontrolled exceptions

Policies that have not been updated to reflect operating model changes (for example, a shift to hybrid cloud) create gaps between “what is written” and “what is done.” Audit failures often emerge where exceptions are normalized without tracked approvals and compensating controls.

Manual control failures and missing evidence trails

Reliance on tribal knowledge, email approvals, and spreadsheets leads to incomplete evidence, inconsistent performance, and poor segregation of duties. As pressure for rapid evidence increases, manual control designs become a scalability constraint that distorts investment priorities and introduces operational risk.

Concentration risk without an exit strategy

Excessive dependence on a single provider—cloud, payment processor, or critical SaaS—without a documented and testable exit strategy is increasingly treated as a governance failure. Resilience expectations extend beyond uptime; they include recoverability and the ability to maintain critical services when dependencies fail.

Regulatory focus areas shaping audits in 2026

Audit expectations tend to converge on a small set of focus areas, even when regulatory drivers differ by jurisdiction. The table below frames common 2026 themes in a way that supports scoping and evidence-pack design.

Focus Area	Key Regulatory Driver	Audit Expectation
Digital resilience	DORA (EU); MAS operational resilience guidance	Tested ICT continuity, incident response, and vendor resilience with traceable evidence
AI governance	EU AI Act (majority of rules apply and enforcement starts August 2, 2026)	Traceability, monitoring, and oversight for automated tasks and high-risk AI uses
Financial crime	AML/CFT expectations; FATF-aligned reforms	Cross-checking beneficial ownership, alert logic, and model governance for detection systems
Operational continuity under stress	Resolution and crisis readiness themes (including SRB 2026 work programme)	Ability to execute crisis playbooks, liquidity monitoring, and operational tooling under time pressure

Establishing an objective baseline to validate strategic ambitions

Assessment-led audit readiness reframes compliance as a measurable capability rather than a periodic project. The executive question is whether the bank can reliably produce control evidence, third-party oversight artifacts, and lineage-backed data within required timeboxes, even during incidents or major change. Where that capability is weak, modernization and AI programs tend to consume contingency and create repeated rework because risk and audit gaps surface late and expensively.

A digital maturity assessment provides a structured way to benchmark the operating model conditions that make “always-on” audit readiness achievable: control automation, evidence management, ownership clarity, resilience testing discipline, and technology governance throughput. These are the same conditions that determine whether strategic ambitions are realistic at the planned pace. Within that context, DUNNIXER Digital Maturity Assessment can be used as the capability baseline to evaluate readiness, sequencing, and decision confidence, reducing the likelihood that audit outcomes invalidate portfolio plans after commitments have already been made.

References

• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technology-risk-audit-readiness-banks-vimal-mani-cisa-cism-crisc-cipm-siudf#:~:text=Audit%20readiness%20depends%20on%20continuous,Validating%20closure%20through%20independent%20testing
• https://www.atlassystems.com/blog/third-party-risk-audit-readiness-checklist#:~:text=A%20third%2Dparty%20risk%20audit%20readiness%20checklist%20is%20a%20structured,your%20entire%20third%2Dparty%20ecosystem.
• https://lionbusinessco.com/global-business-compliance-checklist/#:~:text=Frequently%20Asked%20Questions:-,1.,founders%20prepare%20for%20compliance%20reviews?
• https://www.deloitte.com/ch/en/services/consulting/perspectives/internal-audit-hot-topics-and-operations-focus-areas.html
• https://legal.pwc.de/en/news/articles/srb-publishes-its-annual-work-programme-2026#:~:text=Show%20Footnote%20the%20SRB's%202026,and%20the%20operational%20readiness%20of
• https://www.atlassystems.com/blog/third-party-risk-audit-readiness-checklist#:~:text=Master%20service%20agreements%20with%20security,Vendor%20relationships%20end.
• https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/technology-risk-audit-readiness-banks-vimal-mani-cisa-cism-crisc-cipm-siudf#:~:text=Vulnerability%20assessments%20and%20penetration%20testing,Validating%20closure%20through%20independent%20testing
• https://www.floqast.com/blog/audit-readiness-assessment-understand-the-importance-and-start-planning#:~:text=Learn%20about%20the%20organization%2C%20its,application%20of%20relevant%20accounting%20standards.
• https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=cc69a11c-8bf6-423b-a229-7056a7253621#:~:text=The%20SRB's%202026%20AWP%20signals,resolution%20planning%20and%20crisis%20management.
• https://savantlabs.io/blog/financial-audit-readiness/#:~:text=Audit%20readiness%20is%20a%20continuous,fitness%20(audit%2Dready).
• https://www.v-comply.com/blog/are-you-audit-ready-a-deep-dive-guide-for-internal-compliance-leaders/#:~:text=Conclusion:%20Audit%20Readiness%20Is%20a,its%20integrity%20at%20any%20moment.
• https://escalon.services/blog/finance/how-to-build-an-audit-ready-finance-stack-before-q2-starts#:~:text=Audit%20ready%20does%20not%20mean,can%20answer%20questions%20such%20as:
• https://auditboard.com/blog/bank-regulatory-compliance#:~:text=The%20requirements%20focus%20on%20concrete,compliance%20and%20submit%20annual%20certifications.
• https://linfordco.com/blog/audit-readiness-tips/#:~:text=other%20stakeholders'%20expectations.-,What%20Is%20an%20Audit%20Readiness%20Assessment?,to%20prepare%20for%20the%20audit.
• https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/nl/pdf/2025/kpmg-internal-audit-key-risk-areas-2026.pdf
• https://hyperproof.io/resource/audit-readiness-assessment/#:~:text=An%20audit%20readiness%20assessment%20is,audit%20is%20the%20real%20exam.
• https://hyperproof.io/resource/audit-procedures-and-internal-controls/#:~:text=The%20five%20stages%20of%20the,and%20follow%2Dup%20and%20remediation.
• https://www.hwaalliance.com/how-to-prepare-for-audit-season-a-fall-readiness-guide/
• https://www.crowe.com/insights/top-risks-areas-for-internal-audit--financial-services#:~:text=Validate%20data%20governance%20early.,shifts%2C%20and%20evolving%20examiner%20expectations.
• https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/reports/2026/fsr-outlook-2026/top-5-whats-in-store-for-financial-services-in-2026#:~:text=CRR3%20largely%20applies%20from%201,obligations%20from%2011%20January%202026.