At Kingsford Logistics the chief audit executive is building next year's audit plan and has ranked the audit universe using a risk model weighted for likelihood and impact. A senior manager lobbies for the loyalty-rewards system to be audited first because a colleague in another company had a problem there, although Kingsford's own model scores that system as low risk. What should the chief audit executive do?
- AMove the loyalty-rewards system to the top of the plan, since a peer organisation's incident is direct evidence that the residual risk score understates the true exposure.
- BDrop the loyalty-rewards system from the plan entirely, because the risk model already scored it low and management pressure should not influence audit coverage.
- CAssess whether the peer incident reflects a risk factor present at Kingsford, update the risk inputs if it does, and let the revised scoring determine the engagement's position. Correct
- DAdd the engagement at its current low-risk position but expand its scope so that the concern raised by the senior manager is covered without disturbing the plan.
Why A is wrong: This is tempting because peer incidents can be a useful input, but a single anecdote from a different company is not evidence about Kingsford's own controls, and reordering the plan on it abandons the risk methodology.
Why B is wrong: This over-corrects: refusing even to consider new information is as unsound as caving to pressure, and the point of a risk assessment is to be revisited when relevant inputs appear, not frozen.
Why C is correct: Correct: the methodology drives prioritisation, so the CAE tests the new information against Kingsford's own risk factors and lets the updated assessment, not lobbying, set the ranking.
Why D is wrong: This looks like a compromise, but padding the scope of a low-priority engagement misallocates resources and does not address whether the risk score itself should change.