First drafts of audit responses, with the evidence attached.
AI assembles evidence and drafts responses to internal auditors, external auditors, examiners, and clients, grounded in your historical audit artifacts. Every response is cited and comprehensive enough to satisfy examiners, and your control owners review it instead of spending hours writing from scratch.
- Internal audit and compliance teams
- Control owners in finance, IT, and operations
- Information security teams answering client reviews
- Executives who need remediation status briefs
End the shared-drive hunt at audit time.
Instead of searching shared drives for the latest control description or prior management response, your teams ask for a control narrative, testing evidence, or remediation status and receive a sourced answer.
The result is faster, more consistent responses, and less audit fatigue for your control owners.
- Draft responses to auditors and examiners
- Answer client due diligence requests on security controls
- Brief executives on remediation progress
Paste the request, choose who is asking, and attach any new evidence. The assistant finds the control description, prior responses, and matching evidence in your audit history, and drafts a response with links to each artifact.
Provide the control description, most recent test results, and evidence for the quarterly user access review (IT-07).
Examiner
Draft response: IT-07 Quarterly User Access Review
Control description. Each quarter, system owners review user access to the core banking system, online banking admin, and Active Directory privileged groups. Access no longer needed is removed within 10 business days, and the review is signed off by the Information Security Officer.
Most recent test. Q3 review completed Sept 24. 1,862 accounts reviewed, 37 removals, all within 10 business days. No exceptions.
Evidence
- Q3 access review workpaper, with sign-off (attached)
- Removal tickets IT-4471 through IT-4508 (evidence log, Q3 folder)
- Q2 review and sign-off, for comparison (evidence log, Q2 folder)
Prior responses
This matches the response accepted at the 2025 examination (AR-2025-031). The only change is the addition of online banking admin to the review scope in Q1.
From your documents to a sourced draft.
The assistant uses retrieval-augmented generation (RAG): it finds the relevant passages in the content you approve, then answers from them with citations your team can check.
Connect your audit history
Add prior audit responses, evidence logs, policies, SOC and ISO documentation, and risk mitigation plans to an assistant scoped to your audit team.
Paste the request
Give the assistant the auditor's or client's question. It retrieves the control description, prior responses, and the matching evidence entries.
Review and send
You get a draft response that links to the right artifacts. Your control owner checks it, edits, and sends it through your normal process.
What your team asks, and what comes back.
Draft response to an auditor
The request. During quarterly SOX testing, a finance control owner is asked to explain a key reconciliation control and provide evidence for a sample.
What the assistant returns. The control description from policy, the last audit response, and the relevant evidence log entries, assembled into a draft response that links to the correct artifacts.
Why it matters. Fewer delays for auditors and control owners, and more consistent control descriptions across teams.
Draft response to a client
The request. A client asks you to confirm specific security controls as part of its due diligence review.
What the assistant returns. Relevant SOC 2 and ISO documentation, prior responses to similar requests, and the current risk mitigation plan for open issues, drafted into an appropriately scoped reply with citations.
Why it matters. Faster client due diligence, less burden on your security team, and tighter control over statements that could become contractual.
Executive briefing
The request. After an audit finding, executives need a clear view of remediation progress and whether residual risk is still acceptable.
What the assistant returns. A status brief built from the original finding, management's committed actions, evidence of completion, and the mitigation plan timeline.
Why it matters. More transparency for leadership, and less time spent compiling updates from multiple owners.
Measurable time back, with the controls already in place.
More ways to put AI to work.
Compliance Operations
Policy reviews, regulatory change, and exam prep
See the solutionLoan Application Pre-Review
Give applicants next steps before they leave the branch
See the solutionCustomer Complaint Triage
Classify, route, and track complaints (UDAAP-aware)
See the solutionDiscover real uses for AI at your institution.
We deliver AI workflows that move your team beyond the hype. Share your details and we'll show you this solution running on your own documents, inside your perimeter.
“MultiModel gives us a sandboxed environment within our organization's infrastructure, audit capabilities to review prompts input by employees, and confidence scores for PII present in prompts/attachments.”
Talk to us about Audit Response Drafting
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
AI for audit response drafting: FAQ
Straight answers for CIOs, CISOs, and compliance officers evaluating AI.
Talk to usDoes the assistant submit responses to auditors or examiners?
No. It drafts the response and links the supporting artifacts. Your control owner reviews, edits, and sends it through your normal process, so your team stays accountable for every statement.
What does it draw on?
Your historical audit artifacts: prior audit responses, evidence logs, compliance policies, SOC, ISO, and regulatory documentation, and risk mitigation plans. Instead of searching shared drives for the latest control description, your teams ask for a control narrative, testing evidence, or remediation status and get a sourced answer.
Can it help with client or partner security questionnaires?
Yes. When a client asks you to confirm specific security controls, the assistant pulls the relevant SOC 2 or ISO documentation, prior responses to similar requests, and the current risk mitigation plan, then drafts an appropriately scoped reply with citations.
How does this keep our descriptions of controls consistent?
Because every draft starts from the same approved control descriptions and prior responses, different teams describe the same control the same way. That reduces contradictions between what finance, IT, and compliance tell auditors.
Is audit evidence kept inside our environment?
Yes. Documents are indexed inside your Azure tenant and never copied to a third-party service, and every interaction is logged and risk-scored like any other prompt. See security & compliance.
Turn your audit history into first drafts.
Bring a recent audit request. We'll show you the draft response and linked evidence, generated from your own artifacts inside your perimeter.