Independent Director for Audit and Assurance Coordination

A risk-based view of coverage

Examine whether assurance plans address the decisions and exposures most material to the enterprise. Ask where management relies on self-assessment, where independent work is necessary and where several reviews cover the same narrow issue while another receives little attention. Consider changes in business model, geography, systems and leadership that may invalidate previous coverage assumptions.

Findings that change the operating position

Review how significant findings are escalated, prioritised and closed. Seek evidence that corrective action works rather than accepting completion based on a revised policy or management statement. Recurring findings should prompt questions about accountability, resources and incentives.

Ensure that assurance providers can raise concerns candidly and have access to the information and people required. The director should help the board distinguish a difference in professional judgement from a restriction that undermines the work. Specialist advice may be needed where the subject exceeds the board's collective expertise.

Candidate evidence

Applicants should have senior finance, audit or governance experience with exposure to multiple assurance functions. They must demonstrate independent judgement and the ability to interpret technical findings in their operating context. An application should describe a coverage gap or unresolved finding that materially changed leadership's understanding of risk.

Limits and expected contribution

The director will not design every audit procedure or manage assurance staff. Management remains responsible for controls and remediation; assurance functions retain their professional responsibilities. Eligibility and independence must be assessed for the actual office, including relevant professional relationships.

Success means the board receives a coherent view of what has been examined, what remains uncertain and where action is overdue. The objective is more dependable oversight with proportionate assurance effort, not the largest possible review programme. The governing body should be able to explain why its confidence is justified and where it still depends on evidence yet to be obtained.