Requirement-to-evidence mapping
Link each applicable requirement to its owner, relevant controls and supporting records. Distinguish evidence that a process is designed from evidence that it operated during the period under review.
Business platforms
Audit & compliance systems
Connect requirements, evidence, reviews and actions in an organised workspace.
Built around a specific business need.
Preparing for review becomes expensive when requirements, evidence and responsible people are scattered across different folders. A document may exist without being current, an action may be marked complete without acceptance, and a policy may describe a process that operational records do not demonstrate.
Kent Consultancy proposes an audit and compliance workspace that connects requirements to controls, evidence, review decisions and corrective actions. The aim is to make readiness visible and gaps manageable. The software supports your chosen assurance process; it does not replace professional judgement or certify compliance.
Who this is for
- Compliance teams coordinating evidence across departments and locations.
- Internal audit functions tracking findings and management responses.
- Operational owners preparing for contractual, regulatory or certification reviews.
Where this can make a practical difference.
Audit finding management
Record findings, responses and agreed deadlines with clear accountability. Track proposed closure separately from reviewer acceptance, including rejected evidence and changes to the original action plan.
Controlled review workspaces
Prepare a scoped evidence view for a particular review. Grant only the required access, retain the context behind each item and make the selected review period visible to participants.
How we approach the work.
Establish scope and interpretation
Agree the review framework, organisational boundaries and applicable requirement versions with your responsible specialists. Record interpretation decisions instead of presenting software configuration as legal advice.
Model controls and evidence
Define the relationships between obligations, controls, owners and records. Specify evidence dates, validity periods and acceptance criteria so a file attachment is not automatically treated as sufficient.
Configure review workflows
Build evidence requests, approval queues and finding responses. Include exceptions, extensions and escalation paths, with authority separated where independent review is required.
Protect sensitive material
Apply document-level access where appropriate and control external sharing. Keep activity history and distinguish original evidence from commentary, extracts or AI-generated summaries.
Run an evidence rehearsal
Use representative requirements to test whether reviewers can reach a supported conclusion. Reconcile the evidence register and resolve broken links, missing context or ambiguous ownership before rollout.
The sequence is tailored to the agreed scope, dependencies and risk. It describes our delivery approach, not a fixed timeline or performance guarantee.
What the engagement can deliver.
- Requirement and control registers with named ownership.
- Evidence library with review-period and validity information.
- Audit planning, finding and response workflows.
- Scoped review access and activity records.
- Readiness dashboards, reporting definitions and operating guidance.
The proposal identifies the deliverables, acceptance evidence, responsibilities and support arrangements included in your engagement.
Measure what matters to this workflow.
Evidence readiness
Measure requirements with accepted, relevant evidence against the agreed scope, rather than counting uploaded documents.
Finding response time
Track elapsed time to an adequate response and distinguish submission from independent acceptance.
Evidence retrieval time
Test how quickly authorised reviewers can locate the right record, period and explanation for a sampled requirement.
These are measures to discuss and baseline. Targets are agreed for the specific system and data; no universal improvement percentage is assumed.
What to prepare for discovery.
- The applicable review framework and agreed scope.
- Examples of evidence requests, findings and closure decisions.
- Named specialists responsible for interpreting requirements and approving access.
Questions worth asking.
Can you guarantee we will pass an audit?
No. The platform can improve organisation, traceability and visibility of gaps. Outcomes depend on applicable requirements, the quality of actual practice and the judgement of the reviewing body.
Can AI assess whether evidence is sufficient?
AI can help summarise records or identify apparent omissions. Its suggestions should be traceable to source material and reviewed by someone competent to judge the specific requirement and context.
How are changing requirements handled?
We retain framework versions and assess the impact of changes on mapped controls and evidence. Existing conclusions remain tied to the version and review period under which they were reached.