How AI-guided evidence coordination gets auditors to testing faster

Audit teams spend more time coordinating than testing evidence, and that ratio is getting worse. According to the International Audit Foundation’s 2026 North American Pulse of Internal Audit, the share of internal audit functions reporting budget cuts nearly doubled between 2024 and 2025, rising from 11% to 19%.

The coordination bottleneck sits inside the PBC Request, the file-based evidence request that connects an auditor's testing needs to the person responsible for producing the documentation. The request goes out, the evidence comes back incomplete, questions move to email, and the request reopens. Every reopen adds days to the path between the request and the test. At volume, those days are the difference between finishing fieldwork on schedule and extending it.Optro built Agentic Stakeholder Management to target that coordination window. Agentic Stakeholder Management works inside the PBC Request in WorkStream. It helps preparers understand what evidence is needed and helps reviewers assess whether what came back is sufficient. Every workflow decision and final judgment stays with the reviewer.

The evidence coordination problem in three handoffs

The PBC cycle breaks down at three specific points. Each one adds elapsed time between the request and the test.

1. The preparer sees the request, not the testing criteria

A PBC Request names the evidence needed. It doesn't usually explain the control being tested, the criteria you're applying, or what "sufficient" means for the specific samples you selected. Without that context, the first submission often falls short.

2. The reviewer rebuilds context for every request

To judge evidence sufficiency, you need the control description, the testing procedure, the selected samples, the submitted files, and any prior comments. In most workflows, that information sits across multiple screens and tabs. You reassemble it every time.

3. Each reopen restarts the conversation

A reopened request forces both sides to re-establish context. You re-explain the gap. The preparer reinterprets the request. Another cycle begins, and the test waits.

Agentic Stakeholder Management addresses all three handoffs. Your judgment stays in charge of every decision.

What Agentic Stakeholder Management does: One evidence request, step by step

Agentic Stakeholder Management brings Optro's agentic stakeholder management into the PBC Request you already use in WorkStream. When a preparer or reviewer asks, Agentic Stakeholder Management draws on the request, control-testing criteria, selected samples, submitted files, and interaction history to give context-aware guidance.

Here's how one evidence request moves with Agentic Stakeholder Management, split between what Agentic Stakeholder Management handles and what people still own.

Before submission: The preparer's side

What Agentic Stakeholder Management does when the preparer asks:

• Explains what the request is asking for in plain language, grounded in the control description and testing procedures, not just the request title
• Describes what a sufficient submission looks like for that specific request, based on the testing criteria and selected samples

What the preparer still does:

• Finds and selects the evidence files
• Decides whether to submit
• Owns the accuracy of the documentation

After submission: The reviewer's side

What Agentic Stakeholder Management does when the reviewer asks:

• Assesses whether the submitted evidence appears sufficient against the control-testing criteria and selected samples
• Identifies specific gaps, such as a submission that covers three of four samples or a report dated outside the testing period

What the reviewer still does:

• Decides whether the evidence is sufficient
• Approves, returns, reopens, or completes the task, because Agentic Stakeholder Management takes none of these actions
• Applies professional judgment about whether the evidence supports the control conclusion

Example: A SOX user access review with a missing sample

A SOX tester creates a PBC Request for Q2 access review evidence. The request names four sampled user accounts. The IT control owner, acting as the preparer, uploads a text-based PDF export of the access review report and asks Agentic Stakeholder Management whether it appears to address the request.

It identifies two potential gaps: the report shows only three of the four accounts, and it is dated March 18, before the Q2 testing period begins on April 1. The preparer can ask what is missing or what the report needs to cover. Agentic Stakeholder Management explains the gaps using the available request, sample, and testing context.

The preparer obtains an updated report, uploads it, and asks, “I’ve added the fourth account and uploaded a report for Q2. Does this address the gaps?” Agentic Stakeholder Management evaluates the updated evidence when asked and explains whether it appears to address the issues or what may still be missing. If gaps remain, the preparer can update the evidence and ask it to check again.The reviewer then assesses the submitted evidence and makes the final determination.

Key takeaway: Preparers can use Agentic Stakeholder Management to clarify what’s needed, check their evidence, and ask again after making corrections. The reviewer retains the final decision.

Get to testing faster

See Optro Agentic Stakeholder Management in action

Who benefits from Agentic Stakeholder Management

Preparers: Process owners and stakeholders

Preparers are often process owners, IT administrators, or business-unit staff who handle evidence requests alongside their day-to-day work. Audit terminology may be unfamiliar, and a request may not explain why the evidence is needed or how much detail to provide.

Agentic Stakeholder Management can explain the request using the control and testing details available to the preparer. For example, a preparer might ask, "What does 'journal entry approval evidence for the period' mean for these three transactions?"

If an assessment identifies a gap, the preparer can ask a follow-up, update the evidence, and request another assessment. The goal is to help preparers address gaps earlier and cut down on back-and-forth before the reviewer makes a decision.

Reviewers: Auditors and testers

You evaluate evidence against control objectives and testing procedures. But much of your time goes to assembling what you need before you can review: the control description, the test plan, the samples, the prior comments, and the submission history.

Agentic Stakeholder Management brings that context into one conversation inside the PBC Request. Ask it to check a submission, and it flags whether the evidence appears to match the testing criteria and where the gaps are. The prep work is done. The decision is still yours.

For compliance teams managing evidence with audit-grade rigor across multiple frameworks, the same pattern applies. Clear requests and documented exchanges keep evidence traceable and ready for review.

Audit leaders: CAEs and audit managers

You see the problem in aggregate. Evidence delays, reopened requests, and follow-up outside the audit platform push fieldwork past schedule and create audit fatigue for stakeholders.

Agentic Stakeholder Management changes the math. Preparers submit more complete evidence on the first attempt. Reviewers assess sufficiency without rebuilding context. The impact is evident:

• Fewer rounds of clarification and correction
• Less manual effort to assess submissions against the request and samples
• A faster path from evidence request to testing

What Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't do

Agentic Stakeholder Management has firm boundaries. Each one matters for how your team evaluates and adopts it.

Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't take workflow actions. It never approves, reopens, returns, routes, certifies, or completes a PBC Request. Agentic Stakeholder Management assesses evidence and recommends a next step. The reviewer decides whether to act.

Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't evaluate evidence unless asked. It doesn't scan submissions in the background or generate unsolicited assessments. It responds only when a preparer or reviewer starts a conversation within the PBC Request.

Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't work outside the PBC Request. It operates within file-based PBC Requests in WorkStream. Your team keeps working in the workflow it already knows.

Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't make the audit conclusion. It surfaces relevant information from the control description, testing criteria, selected samples, and submission history. Whether that information changes the conclusion is the reviewer's call.

Agentic Stakeholder Management doesn't certify that evidence is sufficient. It identifies visible gaps, such as missing samples or date mismatches. It doesn't confirm that documentation is authentic or reliable. That's professional judgment, and it stays with you.

Spend less time on evidence coordination. Get to testing faster.

The gap between issuing a PBC Request and starting a test is where fieldwork timelines expand. Clarification requests, incomplete submissions, reopened tasks, and off-platform follow-up fill that gap.

Agentic Stakeholder Management closes it. Preparers get the context to submit the right evidence the first time. Reviewers get the information to assess submissions and spot gaps without hunting across sources. You keep control of every workflow decision.

For audit teams managing recurring evidence requests across many stakeholders, the path forward is clear. Move from chasing evidence to testing it, cut the reopens, and keep coordination where you can see it.

Get to testing faster

See Optro Agentic Stakeholder Management in action