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.
Evidence is the cornerstone of any credible audit, forming the basis upon which findings, conclusions, and audit opinions are built, and without appropriate evidence, even the most well-intentioned audits lose their validity. A key objective of every audit engagement is to gather evidence that confirms or refutes the effectiveness of controls, the accuracy of information, or the adherence to policies, depending on the purpose of the audit. Strong evidence increases the reliability of audit results, enhances stakeholder trust, and supports defensible decision-making by providing factual grounding for every observation or recommendation. For CISA candidates, one of the most frequently tested skills is the ability to assess whether collected evidence is sufficient, appropriate, and relevant to the audit’s scope and objectives. Weak or missing evidence can undermine the entire audit report, leading to inaccurate conclusions, poor decision-making, or compliance failures, which is why evidence collection is not a clerical step—it is an essential discipline within the audit profession and must be treated with the same rigor as any other part of the audit process.
Reliable evidence has a set of defining characteristics, and auditors are expected to evaluate each piece they collect with those criteria in mind. Sufficiency refers to the amount of evidence—whether there is enough to support a conclusion or whether additional samples, documents, or confirmations are needed. Reliability addresses the quality of the source, asking whether the evidence comes from a trustworthy system, a competent authority, or a source that has remained unaltered. Relevance focuses on how directly the evidence supports the audit objective; for example, an access log may be reliable and timely but irrelevant to an audit of financial reporting if it tracks non-financial systems. Timeliness is also a factor, as evidence collected close to the actual event or activity is generally stronger than evidence collected long after the fact, particularly in dynamic IT environments. Finally, objectivity is critical, meaning that the evidence must be free of bias or manipulation and should stand on its own, regardless of who presents it or under what circumstances. These characteristics help auditors filter through a wide range of data and determine which pieces can be relied upon in forming conclusions.
There are several types of audit evidence, each offering different levels of assurance and best suited to specific audit objectives or phases. Physical evidence includes observed assets such as equipment, badge access, or physical security measures, often gathered during site visits or walk-throughs. Documentary evidence is the most common and includes formal records like policies, logs, reports, and configurations—these are reviewed to determine if controls are in place and functioning. Analytical evidence is derived by comparing actual results to expectations using ratios, trends, or benchmarks and is particularly useful when evaluating financial or operational performance. Testimonial evidence includes verbal confirmations or written responses from interviews, questionnaires, or meetings, providing context and insight into how processes are executed. Re-performance is one of the highest-assurance methods, where the auditor independently executes a control to validate that it produces the expected result. All of these evidence types can be valid, but not all carry equal weight—understanding which type is most appropriate for a given scenario is critical, and CISA candidates must be able to identify and apply them accordingly.
Inquiry is a frequently used method of evidence collection and is valuable for understanding how processes function and for confirming whether staff are aware of their roles or responsibilities, but its usefulness depends on how it is applied and whether it is corroborated with other forms of evidence. An auditor might interview a process owner to learn how transactions are approved or how user access is removed upon termination, but the responses are subjective and may be incomplete or overly optimistic. As such, inquiry alone is rarely sufficient for drawing conclusions, and auditors are expected to pair it with observation, inspection, or re-performance to validate that the process works as described. Documentation of inquiry is essential, noting who was interviewed, what questions were asked, what responses were given, and when the conversation occurred. On the CISA exam, candidates are often asked to determine whether a control has been adequately tested when only inquiry has been used, and the correct answer frequently involves recognizing that inquiry must be reinforced with more objective, verifiable evidence to be considered sufficient.
Observation and inspection are two of the most widely used methods for verifying that activities and controls are actually taking place as documented and expected. Observation allows the auditor to witness a process in real time, such as watching a manager approve transactions or an employee secure a server room, providing direct confirmation that tasks are performed. This method is particularly useful for evaluating manual controls, physical security, or routine operations that are not easily documented but are critical to control effectiveness. Inspection, meanwhile, involves reviewing documents, logs, system outputs, or physical items to validate their existence, accuracy, or alignment with policy. For example, inspecting a firewall configuration or reviewing an access request form can show whether the control was followed and whether the documentation is complete and consistent. These methods provide stronger support than testimonial evidence because they are less reliant on memory or interpretation, and they can reveal issues like outdated procedures, missing documentation, or discrepancies between stated and actual practices. CISA candidates must be able to distinguish when observation or inspection is appropriate and understand how to evaluate the strength of the evidence they produce.
Re-performance and walkthroughs provide some of the most robust forms of evidence because they directly test whether controls operate as designed and allow auditors to identify gaps or misunderstandings in the control flow. Re-performance involves the auditor executing a control process independently, such as re-calculating payroll, reviewing audit logs for anomalies, or simulating an access revocation, to confirm that the control produces reliable outcomes. This method is especially valuable for validating controls related to data entry, access provisioning, financial calculations, and system settings. Walkthroughs are slightly different—they combine inquiry and observation by having the auditor follow a transaction or process step-by-step, often from initiation to completion, to understand how it flows through systems and personnel. Walkthroughs are frequently used during control design assessments because they reveal potential failure points, inconsistencies, or undocumented deviations. Both re-performance and walkthroughs offer high levels of assurance and are often used in audits that require a detailed understanding of process execution, such as compliance, security, or operational audits. Expect the CISA exam to present scenarios where these methods are used and to test your understanding of how and when they should be applied.
Electronic evidence and system-generated logs are increasingly important in modern audits, especially in environments where manual processes have been replaced by automated systems, digital workflows, or remote operations. This type of evidence includes audit trails, system logs, access histories, error reports, and automated alerts, all of which provide a behind-the-scenes view of user behavior, system activity, and control execution. These logs must be evaluated for completeness—ensuring all relevant activity is captured—and for tamper-resistance, meaning the logs have not been altered or selectively deleted. Metadata associated with electronic records can offer key insights, such as timestamps, IP addresses, and sequence order, which may indicate whether a transaction occurred properly or whether unauthorized access occurred. Interpreting this data often requires a baseline knowledge of the system's configuration, user roles, and permissions to determine what normal behavior looks like. The CISA exam may provide scenarios that reference system logs and ask you to evaluate whether the evidence is valid, whether it indicates control failure, or whether follow-up investigation is required.
Evaluating the quality of audit evidence requires more than simply collecting it—you must critically assess its credibility, origin, and consistency to ensure that it truly supports your conclusions. One consideration is who prepared the evidence and under what circumstances; evidence produced by someone with a vested interest in the outcome may carry less weight than evidence generated independently by a system or third party. You must also determine whether the document is original, current, and complete; outdated or copied documents can lead to misleading conclusions if they no longer reflect the current state of operations. Assess whether the evidence supports, contradicts, or raises questions about other sources of information collected during the audit, and whether it aligns with known facts or introduces new areas of inquiry. Controls over how evidence is created, reviewed, and stored also influence its credibility—logs that can be edited without oversight, for example, are less reliable than system-generated logs with read-only access. Cross-checking multiple data points helps validate your findings and provides a fuller picture of the control environment. In CISA exam questions, expect to assess whether the evidence presented is trustworthy, timely, and sufficient to support audit conclusions.
Documentation and retention of evidence are equally important to its collection, as even strong evidence loses value if it is not stored, labeled, and presented in a defensible manner. Every piece of evidence—whether it’s a screenshot, interview summary, report extract, or system log—must be filed correctly, labeled with the relevant test or audit step, and stored in a secure, accessible location. Many organizations use audit management software or secure file systems with access controls to protect the integrity of audit evidence and prevent unauthorized modifications. In cases where legal or regulatory consequences are possible, maintaining a clear chain of custody becomes critical, with documentation of who collected the evidence, when it was handled, and how it was stored. Retention policies should comply with both organizational standards and legal requirements, ensuring that evidence remains available for review during internal evaluations or external inspections. Disorganized or missing documentation can weaken an otherwise well-executed audit and undermine trust in the auditor’s conclusions. The CISA exam will expect you to understand how evidence should be retained and documented, particularly when audit defensibility or regulatory scrutiny is at stake.
For CISA candidates, mastering audit evidence is non-negotiable—it is one of the most consistently tested areas across domains and is essential to delivering valid, actionable audit results. You can expect exam questions that ask you to choose the most appropriate evidence collection method, determine whether a particular sample is sufficient, or assess the reliability of a log or document. You must understand when inquiry is acceptable on its own and when it must be supported by observation or inspection. Evidence quality also ties directly to audit risk—if the evidence is weak or incomplete, the findings may not stand up to challenge, and the auditor may be forced to re-test, revise conclusions, or retract recommendations. Practicing scenario-based evaluations will help you build instinct for recognizing strong evidence, identifying gaps, and linking evidence to specific control objectives or audit goals. In real-world audits, as in the CISA exam, evidence is more than just a formality—it is the foundation of everything the audit team delivers, and understanding how to manage it effectively is what separates competent auditors from trusted professionals.
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.