Explainer · Approvals and audit
Review audit evidence for a land operation
How to inspect actor, action, record, time, reason, and related business evidence without assuming universal audit coverage.
- Category
- Approvals and audit
- Best for
- Administrators, approvers, finance reviewers, and governance reviewers
- Reading time
- 5 min read
- Content review
Scope of this guidance
Pole records and presents audit events for many workflows, but each record has its own level of detail. This guide is not an external-audit opinion or a claim that every change has a complete before-and-after record.
Step 1 of 4
Start with a specific review question
An audit search is more useful when it names the record and business event. Ask who allocated a plot, who approved a correction, how a client merge was decided, or which finance export was produced rather than searching for unspecified suspicious activity.
- Name the company scope, record type, stable record identity, action, and time window.
- Confirm the reviewer has the capability to see the relevant tenant or Platform audit context.
- Keep security events, operational logs, analytics, and business audit events in their separate roles.
Step 2 of 4
Read the event at its actual level of detail
A useful event identifies an action, principal or actor context, resource, recorded time, and bounded metadata. Older or narrower events may not contain field-level changes, so the presentation should not invent a before-and-after comparison that was never recorded.
- Check action label, actor or principal, company scope, resource identity, and recorded time.
- Read the reason, batch scope, effective date, or export scope only when that metadata exists.
- Mark missing or ambiguous context as an evidence gap instead of filling it from memory.
Step 3 of 4
Reconcile with the business record
The current record shows the latest state, while the audit event explains the recorded action. Review approval history, allocation episodes, payments or refunds, and corrected records when they are relevant to the question.
- Compare the event's record identity with the current and historical business records.
- Distinguish the effective date of a business event from the time the system recorded it.
- For bulk work, compare the batch event with itemized succeeded, rejected, conflicted, and unchanged results where available.
Step 4 of 4
Handle evidence gaps explicitly
An absent event can mean the filter is wrong, the reviewer lacks scope, the action used a different label, or the workflow lacks the expected coverage. It should trigger a bounded investigation rather than a declaration that no change occurred.
- Broaden the reviewed action aliases or time range without removing tenant scope.
- Record which expected evidence is absent and which owner must assess the workflow coverage.
- Do not describe an export as certified, complete, or regulator-ready without a separately owned review and evidence contract.
Final checks
Confirm these points before treating the workflow review as complete.
- The review question names a scope, record, action, and time window.
- The event is described only at the detail it actually records.
- Current state is reconciled with the relevant business record.
- Missing evidence remains a tracked gap rather than an inferred clean result.
Continue the review
Continue evaluating this workflow
Review the related Pole workflow, then request organization access when your organization is ready to begin the application. Access is reviewed by Platform and is not created immediately.