An audit plan your risks drove
Good practice expects the risk register to direct where internal audit spends its time. Dimeri holds that link directly, so the reconciliation your audit committee asks for is a report rather than a project.
A risk based annual plan
Why findings keep coming back
The plan cannot be traced to risk
The audit plan and the risk register are separate documents, so when an auditor asks which risks drove which engagements there is no answer on paper.
Agreed actions quietly lapse
Management agrees a remediation date, the engagement closes, and follow up falls away. The finding reappears next cycle as a repeat.
Follow up depends on one person
Tracking lives in a spreadsheet owned by the audit manager, so follow up stops when they are on leave or move on.
Assurance overlaps and gaps
Three providers test the same well controlled process while a material risk goes untested for years, because the full picture is split across documents.
Run internal audit the steady way with Dimeri
The plan derived from the register
Each engagement is tied to the risks that justify it, so the rolling three year plan and the annual plan both reconcile to exposure on demand.
One combined assurance map
Management assurance, internal audit and external providers on one grid against the significant risks, with duplication and gaps both visible.
Findings owned in the business
Every finding is an action with a named owner, a due date and escalation, carried forward automatically until it is closed with evidence.
A position that stays current
Engagement status, findings and follow up update as the work happens, so the committee pack reflects today rather than the last reporting date.
A clear path to risk based assurance
Four steps from an audit plan built on habit to one built on exposure.
Book a demoThe significant risks are ranked and the engagements that would give assurance over them are identified. Where a high risk is deliberately not audited, the reason is recorded rather than left implicit.
Built for clarity, designed for control
The plan, the engagement, the finding and the committee pack are one record seen from different angles.
Annual audit plan
Engagements with their phase, resourcing and progress, each traceable back to the risks that justified it.
Coverage against exposure
Every significant risk on one axis and planned assurance on the other, so uncovered cells are obvious.
Findings and follow up
Actions with owners, due dates and status, carried across cycles until closed with evidence.
Control testing
Preventive, detective and corrective controls with test results feeding straight back into control effectiveness.
Audit committee pack
Generated from live engagement and finding data, so the pack and the platform cannot disagree.
When internal audit becomes a business advantage
The reconciliation is a report
When the committee or the Auditor-General asks which risks drove the plan, the answer is a view rather than a week of reconstruction.
Repeat findings drop
Findings stay open with an owner and escalation until evidence closes them, which removes the most common and most expensive audit outcome.
Assurance effort goes where it counts
The combined assurance map reallocates testing from well controlled processes to the exposures that have gone untested.
Ready to Transform Your GRC?
Join governance, risk, and compliance teams using AI to work smarter.