Automated evidence is worthless until an auditor accepts it. This post is about making that case, properly.

A multinational defence organisation in The Hague, Netherlands is piloting continuous assurance over its cloud estate. You would lead the governance side of that pilot: define it, test whether the evidence really holds, and show the leadership what it means.

What you would be doing

• Running the stakeholder discussion that fixes the pilot's scope, target environment, priority application, success criteria and risk areas
• Agreeing roles, responsibilities, dependencies and decision points with the cloud, compliance, audit and business sides
• Judging whether automated evidence from cloud and software services is complete, reliable, traceable and fit for purpose
• Mapping that digital evidence to the controls, audit requirements and assurance expectations it is supposed to satisfy
• Reviewing the dashboard so that it reflects live risk, control status and compliance rather than a comfortable picture
• Preparing the demonstration that explains the dashboard, the insights and the business value to an executive audience
• Running review sessions to validate assumptions and mappings, and tracking issues to remediation

What you would bring

• A bachelor's degree in a related discipline with three years of related experience
• Three years across all of: leadership; communication; strategy; risk management; audit standards; and building a return-on-investment case people can follow
• Documented experience of process analysis and design

Nice to have

• Real technical knowledge of how allied organisations achieve interoperability
• A working understanding of defence cloud strategy
• ITIL, COBIT or an equivalent

Why this one is worth a look

It is the rare governance post with a technical spine: you would be judging real automated evidence, not writing policy about it.