Certified: The ISACA CISA Prepcast

Welcome to The Bare Metal Cyber CISA Prepcast. This series helps you prepare for the exam with focused explanations and practical context.
Audit testing is the process that bridges planning and reporting by producing the evidence needed to determine whether controls are functioning as intended and whether risks are being managed within acceptable boundaries. Testing provides the factual foundation for audit findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and without it, audit opinions are simply unsubstantiated assertions. When performed correctly, testing helps auditors determine the extent of any control weaknesses, how those weaknesses affect business or compliance objectives, and whether mitigating actions are in place and effective. Through audit testing, confidence is built—not just in the auditor’s judgment, but in the financial, operational, and compliance systems being reviewed. For CISA candidates, aligning the right test to the right audit objective is a critical skill, and the exam will expect you to understand how testing contributes to overall assurance and how to choose appropriate methods based on control type, risk profile, and engagement scope.
Audit professionals have a defined set of testing techniques, each designed to gather evidence in different ways, and understanding when and how to use them is a core part of audit execution. Inquiry involves asking stakeholders or staff about how controls operate, what decisions were made, and what procedures are followed, and while this method is efficient, it is rarely sufficient on its own. Observation requires watching a process in real time to verify that actions occur as described—such as observing a manager reviewing and approving transactions—but it may not confirm consistency across time. Inspection involves examining documentation, logs, policies, or configurations to validate that actions occurred, settings were applied, or procedures were followed, and it is one of the most commonly used techniques. Re-performance takes the testing a step further by having the auditor independently execute a control process—such as recalculating an interest rate or testing a user access approval flow—to validate the result. Analytical procedures compare actual performance with expected patterns or trends, and can be used to identify outliers, shifts, or inconsistencies in financial or operational data. On the CISA exam, you’ll be expected to know what each technique reveals, its limitations, and when it should be used in conjunction with others to form a complete evidence base.
Choosing the right test depends on the type of control you are evaluating and the objective of your audit, which means that selecting testing techniques is not a checklist activity but a matter of strategic judgment. For example, preventive controls—such as automated system checks or role-based access permissions—may require observation or inspection of configuration settings to determine whether the control is in place and effective. Detective controls, such as exception reporting or log reviews, may require re-performance to validate whether anomalies are actually being captured and escalated, as well as data analysis to verify alert frequency and completeness. Corrective controls—like restoring a backup or issuing a policy update—require evidence that the response occurred, that the root cause was addressed, and that the fix is sustainable over time. When choosing a testing method, auditors must ensure the evidence gathered is reliable, sufficient, and appropriate, meaning that it supports conclusions in a way that is defensible, replicable, and proportionate to the audit risk. CISA questions will often challenge your ability to select the most appropriate method from a list, based on control type, audit objective, or stakeholder concerns.
Sampling plays a major role in audit testing, especially when evaluating systems or processes that generate large volumes of transactions, records, or user interactions. Rather than attempting to test every instance—an approach that is usually impractical—auditors use sampling to focus effort on a subset that reflects the behavior of the larger population. A well-constructed sample reduces the time and resource burden of testing while still allowing for credible and supportable conclusions. Risk-based sampling is preferable to random selection alone, as it allows the auditor to target higher-risk areas, identify control gaps more efficiently, and avoid overlooking significant exceptions. To be useful, samples must be representative, meaning they should reflect the characteristics and risk of the full population, and they must be defined carefully in terms of population boundaries, size, and selection method. It is also important to clarify whether the purpose of the test is to verify the existence of a control—whether something is in place—or to evaluate its effectiveness—whether it works consistently over time. CISA candidates must demonstrate their understanding of these distinctions, particularly in questions involving audit scoping, evidence sufficiency, and sampling strategy.
One of the most frequently tested areas in sampling methodology is the distinction between statistical and judgmental sampling, both of which are valid but serve different purposes and present different levels of reliability. Statistical sampling is governed by probability, requiring that items be selected randomly and that results be interpreted using confidence levels and error rates, which makes this method repeatable and mathematically defensible. It is ideal when audit findings may be subject to regulatory or external scrutiny, or when conclusions need to be quantified and presented with precision. Judgmental sampling, by contrast, relies on the auditor’s experience, selecting items that are deemed most likely to contain exceptions or that represent unique conditions, such as high-value transactions or entries from new users. This method is faster and often more practical in resource-limited settings, but it lacks statistical generalizability, meaning the results cannot be extrapolated to the entire population with confidence. The CISA exam may ask you to choose which method is more appropriate in a scenario or to identify when a judgmental sample lacks reliability for a given audit objective.
Beyond choosing between statistical and judgmental approaches, auditors must also understand specific sampling methods and when each is most effective. Random sampling ensures that each item in the population has an equal chance of selection, making it a core requirement for statistical analysis and reducing selection bias. Systematic sampling selects every nth item on a list—such as every tenth invoice or every twentieth access request—and can be efficient but must ensure that the pattern doesn’t align with some hidden structure in the data. Stratified sampling divides the population into distinct groups or strata—often based on risk levels or transaction types—and selects samples from each group to ensure diverse coverage; for example, separating transactions above and below a certain threshold. Haphazard sampling, where auditors select items arbitrarily or for convenience, is not recommended and often leads to unreliable results. On the CISA exam, you’ll need to identify which sampling method is most appropriate in a given scenario, especially when audit scope, population characteristics, or risk factors are involved.
Once testing is underway, auditors must evaluate the results of their samples with care, interpreting exceptions in a way that reflects both frequency and severity. The first step is counting how many exceptions are found and classifying them based on impact—minor errors may point to training needs, while major issues may suggest control failure. In some cases, especially in statistical sampling, auditors extrapolate the findings to estimate the total exposure within the full population, using defined formulas and confidence intervals. Consideration must also be given to the control’s frequency—daily controls with multiple exceptions may indicate systemic issues, while one exception in a quarterly control may reflect an isolated lapse. Documenting the criteria used to determine whether an item is an exception is also critical, especially when judgment is involved. Finally, auditors must assess whether the issue is a result of poor control design—where the control cannot prevent the risk—or poor execution—where the control exists but was not followed. These nuances appear frequently in CISA questions, especially in domains focused on testing sufficiency and evaluating control risk.
A frequent challenge in both testing and exam scenarios is differentiating between testing controls and testing transactions, which are related but not interchangeable approaches. Testing controls involves verifying that specific control activities—such as approvals, reconciliations, or reviews—were performed in accordance with the documented process. Testing transactions, however, focuses on the outcome—whether transactions were valid, accurate, complete, or in compliance with a specific policy. It’s possible for transactions to appear valid even if controls were not followed, just as a control may be functioning even if a few transactions still contain errors. For example, if a sample shows all invoices were correct, but no evidence of required approvals exists, the control is likely deficient. Conversely, if approvals occurred but transactions still contain inaccuracies, the control may be ineffective or improperly designed. The CISA exam will often blur the line between these two areas, so you must be clear about what is being tested, what evidence is needed, and what conclusion can be drawn from the results.
Accurate and complete documentation of testing procedures is critical to audit credibility and defensibility, and auditors must ensure that every test includes a clearly stated purpose, defined population and sample size, selected test method, and supporting evidence. Each conclusion drawn must be backed by tangible records, which may include screenshots of configurations, annotated reports, meeting notes, interview summaries, or calculation workpapers. Approvals, signatures, and date stamps can also provide critical confirmation that controls occurred as described. Standardized templates help ensure consistency across audit teams and reduce the likelihood of missing key data points. Incomplete documentation—such as missing rationale for sample selection or undocumented exception thresholds—can undermine the strength of the audit and expose the findings to challenge from stakeholders or regulators. On the CISA exam, expect questions that test your ability to identify documentation weaknesses, determine what should be included in a testing file, or evaluate whether an auditor’s test method supports the conclusion reached.
For CISA candidates, the strategic takeaway is that audit testing is not just about checking boxes—it’s about aligning testing methods with audit objectives, applying the right sample technique, interpreting results based on control design and execution, and documenting every step with clarity and structure. You should be ready to answer questions about test types, sample sizes, population definitions, selection methods, and exception analysis, often under time pressure and with ambiguous scenarios that require applied judgment. More importantly, you must understand the logic behind every choice—why a test method was selected, how a control should be evaluated, or what an exception means in the context of audit scope. Thinking like an auditor means asking not only “what did we find?” but “how do we know this is valid, and what does it imply about risk and control sufficiency?” Solid testing practice leads to stronger conclusions, more persuasive reports, and greater stakeholder trust, and your ability to apply this discipline with precision will serve you well in the exam and far beyond it.
Thanks for joining us for this episode of The Bare Metal Cyber CISA Prepcast. For more episodes, tools, and study support, visit us at Baremetalcyber.com.