Aug 2026· International Journal of innovative inventions in Social Science and Humanities· 0 citations
TL;DR
A graduated algorithmic reliance framework is proposed that ties the permissible depth of reliance on an AI system to the demonstrable explainability of that system, the materiality of the assertion it supports, and the auditor’s capacity to corroborate its output through independent means.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence has moved from the periphery of audit practice to its operational core, and the profession’s conceptual apparatus has not kept pace. This article examines what the opacity of machine learning systems does to two foundations of the auditing discipline: the assurance model, which rests on the auditor’s ability to obtain and evaluate sufficient appropriate evidence, and the liability regime, which rests on a standard of care calibrated to human judgment. Drawing on auditing scholarship, standard-setting developments at the IAASB and the PCAOB, comparative regulatory instruments including the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act, and the common law of auditor negligence, the article argues that neither wholesale prohibition of opaque systems nor uncritical reliance on them is defensible. It proposes a graduated algorithmic reliance framework that ties the permissible depth of reliance on an AI system to the demonstrable explainability of that system, the materiality of the assertion it supports, and the auditor’s capacity to corroborate its output through independent means. The article also reformulates the negligence standard around the figure of the competent hybrid auditor and considers how liability should be allocated among audit firms, technology vendors, and audited entities. Particular attention is given to the position of developing economies, where regulatory capacity constraints sharpen every one of these questions.
AI systems are increasingly used to support consequential organizational decisions, heightening concerns about fairness, reliability, and accountability. Regulators have begun to respond through audit and disclosure mandates, yet credible assurance over AI systems remains underdeveloped and it is unclear who should p...
Generative artificial intelligence (AI) has moved beyond the transactional automation that characterized earlier accounting technologies such as robotic process automation and rule-based expert systems. Large language models and machine-learning-based analytics can now draft audit memoranda, flag anomalies in real time...
Pathan Aiyubkhan, Vaidhya Narendrabhai· International Journal For Mu...· 0 citations
This article addresses the verification of accounting estimates generated by artificial intelligence systems. It investigates the «black box» problem in machine learning and substantiates the need to integrate the concept of Explainable Artificial Intelligence (XAI) into modern auditing practices to enhance audit quali...
O. Yusupova· Scientific Research and Deve...· 0 citations
Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing audit practice by expanding analytical coverage, automating routine procedures, and supporting more continuous risk assessment. These benefits, however, also raise questions about accountability, explainability, professional judgment, data protection, and legal responsibility. T...
E. K. Asirifi, E. Ocansey· International journal of bus...· 0 citations
When generative AI makes the deliverable uninformative, a professional-services provider can still certify the preserved human capability to catch the machine's errors, through a liability pledge whose expected cost falls in that capability. The pledge is credible only up to what can be collected, and that ceiling is s...
Andreas Bauer· 1 citation
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.