Skip to content
Request a demonstration

AI governance, security and trust

Permissions, approvals and an audit trail

When something goes wrong, nobody can say who could do what, who approved it and when.

Demonstration: Quillfeather Retail Group (fictional) · Retail. Fictional data and a scripted answer.

The situation

Organisation
Quillfeather Retail Group (fictional)
Who is asking
Internal audit manager
Industry
Retail
What happened
An audit of the finance system's access found changes that nobody could explain, and the manager wants to see which permission events broke the rules.

The question asked

Which access and approval events this quarter did not follow our own rules, and which have an explanation?

What it reads, and who can see the result

  • Permission change log exportGrants, approvals and removals with who and when.
  • Access policy documentWho may approve what.
Reads
The log of permission events and the access policy.
Does not read
The content of the finance records the permissions protect.
Permission
Internal audit read access to the log.
Who sees it
The internal audit manager and the system owner.

Try it

Review each flagged record: confirm it or dismiss it. The totals and the answer below follow your decisions.

AccountEventApproved byActions made with itFindingDecision
Analyst 14Read access to ledgerFinance manager0MatchedNone needed
Analyst 21Approval rights grantedAnalyst 2138Approved by the person receiving the rights
Contractor 07Administrator roleIT manager112Administrator role for a contractor with no end date
Leaver 03Account still activeNone4Active 41 days after leaving; four actions since
Manager 02Payment release rightsFinance director0MatchedNone needed
Service account 9Dormant administratorNone recorded3Privileged account with no owner, idle for 200 days, then three logins from an unrecognised host
Flagged
4 of 6 · 157
Raise a finding
0 · 0
Explained
0 · 0
Undecided
4 · 157

The answer

Simulated answer. Written for this fictional case, not produced by a live model. Only the figures in it are computed, from what you decided above.

4 of 6 permission events broke the access rules, 157 actions made with them.

Four problems stand out: a person approving their own rights, an open-ended administrator role for a contractor, a leaver's account still active, and a privileged account with no owner that has just started being used from an unknown host [S1][S2]. The leaver's account and that one are the most urgent because actions have already been taken with them.

You have chosen to raise 0 findings (0 actions made) and treat 0 as explained (0); 4 are undecided.

Relies on: S1 · Permission change log, Q3S2 · Access policy

Review and approval

The internal audit manager decides. Approving raises findings with the system owner, who must respond. It does not remove any access or reverse any action.

Not ready to approve. 4 flagged events are still undecided. Confirm or dismiss each one first.

In the product this is a different person with the right permission. Here you play that role to see the rule.

What it produces

registerDraft, not approved

Access findings

  • Findings: 0, covering 0 actions.
  • Explained: 0 with the reason recorded.
evidenceDraft, not approved

Audit trail

  • Each finding cites the rule and the log entries.

Limits of this example

  • The log shows events, not intent.
  • Removing access is a decision for the system owner.
  • This is a scripted demonstration on fictional data. No model was called and no real organisation, person or result is shown.