Investigate recurring audit issues across sites

When the same finding keeps appearing at several sites, an agent tests competing explanations against maintenance, inspection and procedure records. The assurance owner decides the response.

A miner audits ground control at six sites. The same kind of finding keeps showing up: slope inspections overdue, or prism data not reviewed. Is there one shared cause, or six local ones? Today an assurance analyst groups findings by their words and reports the repeats to the board. In this design an agent states competing explanations and asks for the records that would test each one. It also looks at the sites that did not have the finding. The assurance owner decides the response. The formal audit record stays untouched by the agent.

Four steps, left to right. Find a pattern: compare findings across sites A, B and C. Ask why: state competing explanations, such as one shared cause or different local causes. Investigate: seek evidence and counterexamples. Report: explain the support and the uncertainty. A banner says similar wording is a clue, not proof of a common cause. — **Test whether recurring audit issues share a cause**The agent checks each explanation against the records before anyone calls it a shared cause.Open image at full size ↗

Experience behind this example

The design builds on the author's own topic-modelling work on geotechnical audit gaps across sites.

The systems involved

The work touches seven of the fourteen layers. The full estate is on the energy and resources page.

Layer	Systems in this use case
Systems of record (R04)	Audit system (Enablon, Cority, Intelex, SAP Audit Management, Ideagen), or Excel. The action module of the health, safety and environment (HSE) system. Enterprise asset management (EAM) with maintenance and inspection history. Document store with procedures and closure evidence
Line of business and OT (R05)	Geotechnical monitoring: slope radar (GroundProbe) and survey prisms. Read only
Intelligence and learning (R06)	Topic models, which group findings that use similar words
Agent platform (R07)	New: the agent, its case store, and an evidence request queue
Governance, risk and sovereignty (R11)	The assurance program. The board risk committee. Certification to ISO 45001, 14001 and 55001. Tailings governance (GISTM)
Operating model and supervision (R13)	Assurance manager, auditors, site owners, standard owners, executives
Agent data engineering (R14)	Links across sources: site, asset, procedure version, auditor and audit template

Layer: Systems of record (R04)
Systems in this use case: Audit system (Enablon, Cority, Intelex, SAP Audit Management, Ideagen), or Excel. The action module of the health, safety and environment (HSE) system. Enterprise asset management (EAM) with maintenance and inspection history. Document store with procedures and closure evidence

Layer: Line of business and OT (R05)
Systems in this use case: Geotechnical monitoring: slope radar (GroundProbe) and survey prisms. Read only

Layer: Intelligence and learning (R06)
Systems in this use case: Topic models, which group findings that use similar words

Layer: Agent platform (R07)
Systems in this use case: New: the agent, its case store, and an evidence request queue

Layer: Governance, risk and sovereignty (R11)
Systems in this use case: The assurance program. The board risk committee. Certification to ISO 45001, 14001 and 55001. Tailings governance (GISTM)

Layer: Operating model and supervision (R13)
Systems in this use case: Assurance manager, auditors, site owners, standard owners, executives

Layer: Agent data engineering (R14)
Systems in this use case: Links across sources: site, asset, procedure version, auditor and audit template

How it runs today

The trigger is a periodic assurance review, a question from the board, or a serious finding that looks familiar. The work then runs in nine steps.

Step	Who	System	How the data moves
1. Plan	Assurance manager	Audit system, or Excel	An annual audit program, by site and topic
2. Audit	Auditor: internal, third party, geotechnical review board or insurer	Checklists. Site visit	Findings written in a Word or PDF report
3. Enter findings	Auditor or coordinator	Audit system	Copied from the report. Severity and category set by hand
4. Assign actions	Site owners	HSE action module	An owner and a due date for each action
5. Close actions	Site owners	Audit system. Evidence in SharePoint	A document or a note is uploaded. Often closed without a check
6. Look for patterns	Assurance analyst	Excel export, keyword search, topic models	Findings grouped by their words
7. Report	Head of assurance	Board risk or sustainability committee pack	Repeat findings and overdue actions
8. Decide on a systemic fix	Executive, standard owner	Standards and procedures	Change a standard, or fund a program
9. Check it worked	Assurance	The next audit cycle	Months later

Step: 1. Plan
Who: Assurance manager
System: Audit system, or Excel
How the data moves: An annual audit program, by site and topic

Step: 2. Audit
Who: Auditor: internal, third party, geotechnical review board or insurer
System: Checklists. Site visit
How the data moves: Findings written in a Word or PDF report

Step: 3. Enter findings
Who: Auditor or coordinator
System: Audit system
How the data moves: Copied from the report. Severity and category set by hand

Step: 4. Assign actions
Who: Site owners
System: HSE action module
How the data moves: An owner and a due date for each action

Step: 5. Close actions
Who: Site owners
System: Audit system. Evidence in SharePoint
How the data moves: A document or a note is uploaded. Often closed without a check

Step: 6. Look for patterns
Who: Assurance analyst
System: Excel export, keyword search, topic models
How the data moves: Findings grouped by their words

Step: 7. Report
Who: Head of assurance
System: Board risk or sustainability committee pack
How the data moves: Repeat findings and overdue actions

Step: 8. Decide on a systemic fix
Who: Executive, standard owner
System: Standards and procedures
How the data moves: Change a standard, or fund a program

Step: 9. Check it worked
Who: Assurance
System: The next audit cycle
How the data moves: Months later

Geotechnical audits draw on more than findings. They use slope radar and prism data, inspection records, ground control plans and tailings dam reviews. The tailings standard GISTM (August 2020) sets the frame for tailings.

Recurring audit issues today: who does whatToday findings are grouped by their words, and the check comes a year later.Open image at full size ↗

Handoffs

Findings pass from auditors to site owners, then to assurance. Assurance reports to the executive and the standard owners. The next audit checks whether the fix worked.

Where reporting comes in

Audit dashboards track open and overdue actions. The board risk or sustainability committee reads the repeat findings. Certification audits for ISO 45001, 14001 and 55001 and regulator inspections use the same records.

Cycle time and volumes

The audit program runs once a year (typical, unsourced).
Actions fall due in 30 to 90 days (typical, unsourced).

Pain points

The same issue is written in different words.
Different issues share the same words.
Text is copied between reports.
Categories differ by auditor.
Audit scope changes from year to year.
Closure evidence is weak.
Findings are not linked to maintenance or inspection records.

How agents run it

The agent tests explanations. It reads the audit system through a read interface, and other records only through internal requests. It writes its own case and evidence requests. It never writes the audit record.

Step	Agent or person	Reads from, and how	Writes to	Who approves, and where
1. Group	The topic model calculates	Audit system export, by its programming interface	The case: candidate groups	No one
2. State explanations	Agent	The groups. Audit scope. Changes to the audit method	Explanations, each with what would disprove it	No one
3. Check for false patterns	Agent	Audit dates, auditor, template version	Notes on copied wording or changed coverage	No one
4. Ask for evidence	Agent drafts	EAM history. Inspection records. Procedure versions. Closure evidence	Evidence requests to the owning teams, in a request queue	The assurance owner approves the request list. Or a rule allows internal requests
5. Look for counterexamples	Agent	The same records at sites without the finding	Case store	No one
6. Report	Agent	The case	A report on support, uncertainty and gaps. Each statement links to its source	The assurance owner reviews it
7. Decide	Assurance or engineering owner	The report	The audit system: a systemic issue record and its actions	A person, in the audit system

Step: 1. Group
Agent or person: The topic model calculates
Reads from, and how: Audit system export, by its programming interface
Writes to: The case: candidate groups
Who approves, and where: No one

Step: 2. State explanations
Agent or person: Agent
Reads from, and how: The groups. Audit scope. Changes to the audit method
Writes to: Explanations, each with what would disprove it
Who approves, and where: No one

Step: 3. Check for false patterns
Agent or person: Agent
Reads from, and how: Audit dates, auditor, template version
Writes to: Notes on copied wording or changed coverage
Who approves, and where: No one

Step: 4. Ask for evidence
Agent or person: Agent drafts
Reads from, and how: EAM history. Inspection records. Procedure versions. Closure evidence
Writes to: Evidence requests to the owning teams, in a request queue
Who approves, and where: The assurance owner approves the request list. Or a rule allows internal requests

Step: 5. Look for counterexamples
Agent or person: Agent
Reads from, and how: The same records at sites without the finding
Writes to: Case store
Who approves, and where: No one

Step: 6. Report
Agent or person: Agent
Reads from, and how: The case
Writes to: A report on support, uncertainty and gaps. Each statement links to its source
Who approves, and where: The assurance owner reviews it

Step: 7. Decide
Agent or person: Assurance or engineering owner
Reads from, and how: The report
Writes to: The audit system: a systemic issue record and its actions
Who approves, and where: A person, in the audit system

Similar wording alone does not prove a shared cause. The agent checks whether apparent repeats come from changed audit coverage, copied text or different categories. It stops when the evidence supports a bounded answer, or when the explanations stay unresolved.

A swimlane with five lanes: topic model, agent, assurance owner, owning teams, and the case store. Step 1: the topic model groups findings from the audit system. Step 2: the agent states competing explanations and what would disprove each. Step 3: the agent checks for false patterns such as copied wording or changed scope. Step 4: the agent drafts evidence requests. The assurance owner approves the request list. This is an approval. The owning teams reply with EAM, inspection and procedure records. Step 5: the agent looks at sites without the finding. Step 6: the agent reports support, uncertainty and gaps. Step 7: the assurance owner decides and records any systemic issue in the audit system. This is an approval. The case store links every statement to its source. — **Recurring audit issues with an agent: who does what**The agent tests explanations against records. A person writes the audit record.Open image at full size ↗

What stays with a person

The audit opinion and the formal findings. They are formal records, in the formal records zone.
Closing actions. An accountable owner signs.
Changing a standard. That is a management decision.
Anything sent to the board or a regulator.

Where the evidence is kept

The case links each statement to its source record. Requests and replies are kept. The formal audit record is untouched by the agent. The agent cannot change its own log either. That is the observability and audit trail capability at work.

What changes in the systems

A read interface on the audit system.
An "evidence request" action type, or a request queue.
A "systemic issue" link field on findings.
Site permissions carried into every read the agent makes.
A search index over procedures and past findings, held in knowledge and memory.

What does not change

The audit method and the audit record stay as they are. The same people close actions. Certification audits do not change.

Who does this today

No named deployment of a cross-site audit agent was found by 15 October 2026.

Intelex with COMET launched investigations and root cause analysis on 27 October 2025. It aims to find systemic failure patterns in incidents [vendor].
Cognite with ABB announced agents on ABB's safety and alarm tools on 21 May 2026. Aker BP is the first customer. Aker BP aims for "hundreds of agents by 2026" [vendor]. The release does not say whether its agents can write anywhere.
Aker BP with Cognite lists barrier management among its current agent uses (World Oil, 16 September 2025) [vendor].

Where this sits

The four questions place this agent as follows. Its role is assist. Its permissions are read only on the audit system, and it reaches other records only through internal requests. It writes its own case, notes and requests. It never writes the audit record. It runs at delegated tasks (A2) on the autonomy contract, as designed and as permitted. The assurance owner reviews every report. For the decision on a response, the agent only assists (A1). Its impact is small. A wrong pattern costs review time, and the owner catches it before anything is recorded.

On the risk profile it is Tier 2 (enhanced). Production systems of record and internal requests score Medium. It takes no action inside a deterministic zone. It starts at curated learning (L1). People choose the past findings it learns from.

Measure the result

Measure how often experts agree with the report, and the useful issues it finds. Count false systemic conclusions. Measure evidence completeness and investigation effort. Compare against topic models plus expert review. More clusters or more records found is not the result.

Start with a trial

Take two years of findings from one topic, such as ground control, across all sites. Pick a pattern experts already investigated. Run the agent on it, with requests drafted but not sent. Compare its report with what the experts found. Then run it live on the next audit cycle. Register the agent through the agent lifecycle, with a named sponsor.

Evidence and limits

No named deployment of this agent exists. The as-is is typical practice. The cycle times are typical and unsourced.

The vendor products named above aim at patterns in incidents, not audit findings across sites. None reports a measured result for this work.

The topic-model step comes from the author's own work. The agent's evidence requests and counterexample search are a proposal. They have not been tested.

Next step

Score this agent on the risk profile. Then read how evidence from several sources is combined in knowledge and memory.

Explore this topic

Sources were read on 15 October 2026 unless a line says otherwise. [vendor] marks a vendor's claim about its own product or customer.

Business Wire, Intelex and COMET, 27 October 2025 [vendor].
Cognite and ABB release, ANSA copy, 21 May 2026 [vendor].
World Oil, Aker BP and Cognite Atlas AI, 16 September 2025 [vendor].
ReAct: reasoning and acting with language models. Accessed 17 September 2026. The loop of stating a hypothesis, acting and checking.
GISTM, the Global Industry Standard on Tailings Management, August 2020. Known from background, not re-checked in this round.