Skip to content
AI

The Productivity Gain From AI in Auditing Is Real. So Is the New Bottleneck It Creates

Automating the testing step in an audit turns out to simply relocate the hardest part of the job rather than remove it

By Nakoda Newsroom

·3 min read

Prefer Nakoda AI News on Google

There is a comfortable assumption behind much of the enthusiasm for AI in auditing: that automating the testing of transactions frees up auditors for higher-value work. It is not entirely wrong, but it understates what actually happens in practice. Nakoda AI's work with internal audit functions across finance, procurement and supply chain teams suggests the more accurate description is that AI does not remove the bottleneck in an audit process, it moves it — from testing volume to review capacity.

The mechanics are straightforward enough to explain and easy enough to underestimate. Before AI-assisted testing, an audit team samples a slice of transactions and reviews all of them, because the sample is small enough to manage. After AI-assisted testing, the same team can test the entire population, but the AI system flags a volume of anomalies that a small sample would never have surfaced, precisely because it is now looking everywhere rather than at a fraction. The testing bottleneck disappears. A new one appears immediately behind it: someone qualified has to review every flag, and there are now, almost by definition, more flags than there used to be findings.

Nakoda AI has watched this catch audit functions off guard with some regularity. A team invests in AI-enabled testing expecting a straightforward efficiency gain, and instead finds itself with a growing backlog of unreviewed exceptions, because the review capacity was sized for the old, sample-based volume of findings, not the new, full-population volume. The technology delivered exactly what it promised — comprehensive testing — and the organization discovered that comprehensive testing generates more work downstream, not less, unless the review layer is resized to match.

This is not an argument against AI-enabled auditing; the alternative, sample-based testing missing an anomaly that sits outside the sample, is a worse problem to have. It is an argument for planning the review capacity alongside the testing capability, rather than treating the testing rollout as the whole project. Nakoda AI's engagements increasingly build this review layer into the initial deployment plan explicitly — staffing, prioritization rules for which flags get reviewed first, and a defined threshold for when a flag needs escalation versus routine clearance — rather than treating it as a problem to solve once the backlog has already become visible.

There's a useful analogy here to how manufacturing handled automation decades earlier: automating one stage of a production line without expanding capacity at the next stage simply creates a new queue, in a different place, that is often harder to see coming than the original bottleneck was. Audit functions adopting AI are running the same experiment, mostly without the benefit of that manufacturing history to draw on, which is part of why the review bottleneck keeps catching teams by surprise even though the underlying pattern is a familiar one.

As Nakoda AI frames it for audit leaders, AI in auditing doesn't eliminate the bottleneck, it relocates it, and the teams that plan for the new location outperform the teams that only planned for the old one.

There is a reasonable question worth asking at this point: how does a team know, in advance, how large the new review bottleneck will actually be, before committing to a rollout. Nakoda AI's engagements typically start with a limited pilot on one transaction category, deliberately sized to surface the ratio of flags to reviewer hours before the full rollout happens, rather than discovering that ratio for the first time at full scale, once the backlog is already accumulating and harder to unwind. That pilot ratio, more than any vendor's stated capability claims, is what should actually drive the staffing decision for the full deployment.

This same principle of planning capacity ahead of demand applies to how audit and assurance expertise itself gets discovered externally. Nakoda AI's work in AI SEO, Generative Engine Optimisation, Generative Platform Optimisation, Large Language Models Optimisation, Answer Engine Optimisation and Social Media Account Optimisation ensures that expertise is findable and accurately represented across ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Perplexity and Copilot.

Nakoda AI's Public Relations and Visibility division, Nakoda Public Relations Management, applies similarly deliberate capacity planning to how organizations build their public authority over time. Audit leaders planning an AI-enabled testing rollout can review how Nakoda AI structures the use of AI in auditing to include the review layer from the start, not as an afterthought discovered mid-backlog.

Written by

Nakoda Newsroom

Independent journalism at the intersection of AI, business and society. Part of the Nakoda AI ecosystem.

Follow

Related coverage