OSO Audit

For audit firms · built and running

Audit software an inspector can follow.

Automate the fieldwork without asking anyone to trust a black box. Every conclusion traces to the clause behind it — and the trace is stored, not reconstructed.

See how it works Talk to us

Engagement · trace view
Journal entries posted after period close
Finding  41 entries · $1.2m · flagged for review
Management override of controls
Risk  assessed significant
Cut-off testing over post-close entries
Procedure  100% of population reperformed
ISA 240.32 — journal entries and adjustments
Clause text opens in place · one click from the finding
11,683
standards clauses, linkable from any conclusion
100%
of the population reperformed — not sampled
5
gated checkpoints, each a recorded human judgment
Built
and running today — not a waitlist

Three minutes, one real engagement

Watch it work.

Not a storyboard and not a mock-up. Every screen below is the running platform, recorded on a complete engagement — findings ranked, a conclusion traced to its clause, materiality recomputing live, a review gate passed, and an opinion signed and sealed.

Narrated · 2 min 45 s · captured from the running platform

The problem isn't capability. It's defensibility.

Audit AI can already find the anomalies. What it usually cannot do is tell you why, in terms a regulator accepts. A tool whose conclusions nobody can trace back to a standard shifts risk onto the person who signs — which is exactly why adoption stalls in the firms that would benefit most.

One-button trace

The path an inspector asks for is a first-class object, not something reconstructed under deadline.

Finding Risk Assertion Procedure Standards clause ISA 315.26 · AS 2201.34 Each hop is stored, not inferred — the chain survives staff turnover and file archive.

What that buys you

Six properties that follow from one decision: never produce a conclusion the auditor cannot defend.

Every conclusion cites its clause

Findings link to the specific standards paragraph behind them, and the chain from finding to clause is one click — not a citation pasted in afterwards. The link is a stored relationship, so it survives archive and staff turnover.

0

outputs enter on the model's authority

Every one is accepted, edited or rejected by a named human. The file records both the proposal and the judgment.

~200ms

to reperform a control

Controls compile to deterministic logic and run over the full population, issuing a signed certificate — not a sampled conclusion.

Late data doesn't silently rewrite your file

When new data arrives — as it always does — only the artifacts it actually affects are flagged stale. The rest of your concluded work stays intact. That is the difference between software that respects a concluded file and software that quietly overwrites one.

Multi-jurisdiction from the start

US PCAOB and SEC frameworks alongside international ISA, IFRS and IESBA, and MENA regulators including DFSA — in one corpus, not separate products.

Your methodology, versioned

Firms author their own workpaper and field universes. An engagement pins to a version, so a mid-engagement change can never mutate a concluded file.

This is the actual product. Unstaged.

A real capture from the running system on a complete fixture engagement — 244 findings ranked by risk, the exposure quantified, and the five gates across the top. No mockups anywhere on this site.

osoaudit.com/app/findings
Findings workspace: 244 findings, $239M at risk, wave checkpoints, risk-level and per-engine charts
The findings workspace. More real screenshots →

A standards corpus, not a PDF library

Clauses are addressable objects that findings, risks and procedures link to directly. That is what makes the trace above possible rather than aspirational.

Clauses in the corpus, by framework

11,683 in total, across 19 frameworks. Counted from the live corpus on 2026-08-09 with test fixtures excluded, not estimated.

ISA — 6,463 clauses ISA 6,463 IFRS — 1,766 clauses IFRS 1,766 PCAOB Auditing Standards — 1,445 clauses PCAOB AS 1,445 IESBA Code of Ethics — 1,424 clauses IESBA 1,424 Other frameworks — 274 clauses combined Other 274 Quality control / quality management — 111 clauses QC / QM 111 DFSA (Dubai Financial Services Authority) — 102 clauses DFSA 102 SEC Regulation S-X — 98 clauses SEC Reg S-X 98 0 6,463 clauses
View as table
FrameworkClauses
ISA — International Standards on Auditing6,463
IFRS1,766
PCAOB Auditing Standards1,445
IESBA Code of Ethics1,424
Other frameworks combined274
Quality control / quality management111
DFSA102
SEC Regulation S-X98
Total11,683
Multi-jurisdiction by design. Counted from the running system — every figure on this site is queried, never estimated.

Where it deliberately stops

Some judgments are legally reserved to a person. Advertising limits is unusual; for this buyer it is the entire credibility argument.

AreaWhat the software doesWhat stays with you
FindingsDetects, evidences, cites the clauseAccepting, editing or rejecting every one
IndependenceScreens and surfaces what it foundThe partner attests — the tool never asserts permissibility
The opinionAssembles the supporting fileEntirely yours. It is a judgment, not an output

Five gates. Five recorded judgments.

No gate advances on the model's authority. Each one is a named person's decision, snapshotted against the exact data state it was made on.

  1. 1
    Intake
    GL · documents · ERP
  2. 2
    Detection & risk
    findings routed for review
  3. 3
    File build
    pinned methodology version
  4. 4
    Evidence & proving
    signed control certificate
  5. 5
    Completion
    archive · inspection pack

What we are looking for

Built and running. Now we want it stress-tested.

If you are an audit firm willing to run a real engagement on it and tell us where it falls short, that is precisely the conversation we want.

Get in touch Read the security posture