Adviser to Audit Committee — Regulatory Technology

The mandate

The Audit Committee keeps asking whether expanding RegTech spend is producing reliable, traceable control evidence or adding interfaces around unresolved process breaks. Each regulated entity reports progress differently, making group oversight weak.

Two days each month include an assurance-evidence review and Audit Committee attendance. A material control question receives acknowledgement within one business day and a written view within three.

The twelve-month term covers one full audit and regulatory cycle and is non-renewable under this scope. The adviser has no line authority, audit-opinion role, management responsibility or vendor-selection vote.

Only two other financial-sector assignments may run. Roles with group auditors, compliance vendors, competing institutions or regulators must be declared, and implementation revenue connected to findings is prohibited.

Why the board wants this voice

Audit understands evidence and technology understands systems, but nobody on the committee has implemented controls across both. Directors need to distinguish automation coverage from assurance quality. The adviser gives them a technically credible yet independent challenge.

What you will own

• Test whether automated controls address the underlying regulatory obligation and failure mode.
• Challenge coverage claims that exclude manual overrides, data lineage or exception queues.
• Press management to reconcile inconsistent control taxonomies across group entities.
• Shape committee questions on identity, surveillance, reporting and record-retention platforms.
• Examine vendor dependence and model opacity that may weaken assurance.
• Guide criteria for relying on continuous monitoring in the audit plan.
• Advise when independent validation is required before closing a material issue.

Candidate qualifications

• 22–28 years in financial-services audit, compliance technology, risk or data governance.
• Direct responsibility for implementing or assuring RegTech across multiple regulated entities.
• Evidence of identifying a false control-coverage claim through lineage or exception analysis.
• Working command of automated controls, evidence integrity, model risk and audit reliance.
• Repeated Audit Committee communication on material technology-control issues.
• Independence from incumbent auditors and technology suppliers.

Non-negotiables

• Two Mumbai days monthly and every scheduled Audit Committee meeting.
• Three-working-day response on complete material-control packs.
• Disclosure of auditor, regulator, vendor and financial-institution relationships.
• No audit opinion, implementation upsell or executive remediation authority.

1. 49 words maximum. Which automated compliance control did you find unreliable, and what evidence revealed the gap?
2. 49 words maximum. Which audit, vendor, regulator or financial-institution relationships must this committee assess?
3. 49 words maximum. Can you commit two monthly days across a full audit cycle and answer complete material queries within three days?