As your company prepares for the FY2026 Sarbanes‑Oxley (SOX) compliance cycle, now is an ideal time for Internal Audit teams to identify opportunities to improve efficiency, strengthen control precision, and enhance audit readiness.
This article, the seventh of a focused series, guides you through next steps so you can approach SOX compliance in 2026 with clarity and confidence.
Recent advancements in technology, particularly in Artificial Intelligence (AI), have materially expanded what is possible in continuous auditing. Internal Audit teams can now analyze larger populations of transactions more frequently, identify anomalies more quickly, and extract insight from data sources that were historically difficult to leverage at scale.
As analytics capabilities become more accessible and easier to embed into repeatable routines, continuous auditing is evolving from an aspirational concept into a practical operating model. This translates to earlier visibility into risk, more precise exception-based reviews, and fewer late-cycle surprises driven by issues discovered only during interim or year-end testing.
The FY26 SOX Challenge: Timing, Not Intent
As organizations complete FY25 SOX and begin preparing for FY26, many SOX leaders are experiencing a familiar problem. The program works, but it often feels reactive, resource‑intensive, and overly concentrated around interim and year‑end testing. Documentation issues surface late, remediation efforts are compressed into narrow windows, and recurring findings reappear despite meaningful effort from control owners and Internal Audit.
These challenges are rarely the result of poor intent or weak controls. More often, they reflect a SOX program that is still designed around periodic, sample‑based testing in an environment that is increasingly automated, integrated, and data‑driven. As systems evolve, the traditional SOX cadence struggles to keep pace.
Why Continuous Auditing Is Gaining Traction
For FY26, leading organizations are changing the questions they ask. Instead of focusing on how to test controls faster or more efficiently, they are asking how to identify issues earlier, improve control precision, and reduce late‑cycle surprises. Continuous auditing, when paired with management‑owned continuous monitoring, is emerging as a practical way to do exactly that.
Continuous auditing shifts assurance forward in time. Rather than evaluating controls weeks or months after transactions occur, Internal Audit uses analytics and technology‑enabled procedures to assess risks and controls throughout the year. This does not require real‑time automation or a wholesale redesign of the SOX program. It requires a deliberate move toward repeatable, population‑level insight that supports earlier intervention and more informed testing.
Clarifying Roles to Enable Sustainable Implementation
Successful continuous auditing implementation starts with clear role definition. Management owns controls and continuous monitoring activities, including setting thresholds, investigating exceptions, and executing remediation. Internal Audit remains independent, using continuous auditing techniques to assess risks, evaluate control performance, and test the reliability of management’s monitoring where appropriate.
This distinction is critical for SOX. When Internal Audit is perceived as operating as a monitoring control rather than assessing it, independence and objectivity are put at risk. Clear ownership allows analytics to strengthen the SOX control environment while preserving the integrity of the three‑lines model and supporting auditor reliance.
Where Continuous Auditing Delivers the Most SOX Value
From a SOX perspective, continuous auditing is most effective when applied selectively. The highest value typically comes from areas that carry meaningful financial reporting risk, rely on structured data, and consistently generate audit friction.
Journal entries and the financial close are common starting points. Monthly analytics that evaluate entire populations of manual journal entries can identify unusual timing, users, amounts, or patterns that warrant review. Over time, these routines improve the precision of journal entry controls and significantly reduce year‑end testing pressure.
Management review controls are another area where continuous auditing can drive meaningful improvement. Many SOX findings stem from reviews that lack defined thresholds or documented follow‑up. Analytics enable a shift from generalized report review to exception‑based review, where reviewers focus on defined variances and document how issues were resolved. This strengthens both control effectiveness and audit evidence.
Continuous auditing also supports IT‑related SOX risks. Ongoing analysis of user access changes, privileged access, and segregation‑of‑duties conflicts provide early warning signals and help prevent IT General Controls (ITGCs) issues from cascading into broader control failures. Similarly, repeatable completeness and accuracy checks over system‑generated reports strengthen the foundation for automated and IT‑dependent controls.
Implementing Continuous Auditing as an Operating Model
The success of continuous auditing depends far more on operating discipline than on advanced tools. Reliable access to data must be established first, ideally from governed systems supported by effective IT general controls. Data refresh timing should align with business cycles such as the monthly close, payroll runs, or system release schedules. Basic validation steps including record counts, totals, and parameter checks should be embedded into each routine to support reliance.
How exceptions are handled is just as important. In a continuous auditing model, dashboards and visualizations are not the evidence. The evidence is the exception workflow. Audit‑ready implementation clearly defines who runs each routine, who reviews results, what constitutes as an exception, how investigations are documented, and where evidence is retained. When this workflow is consistent, documentation quality improves and the need for auditor reperformance declines.
How Continuous Auditing Improves SOX Planning and Testing
Beyond testing, continuous auditing enhances how SOX programs are planned and executed. As exception trends and risk patterns emerge, Internal Audit can refresh scoping decisions based on actual risk signals rather than prior‑year assumptions alone. Walkthroughs and interim testing can be targeted to higher‑risk areas, while lower‑risk areas can be approached more efficiently.
Over time, this creates a SOX program that is more responsive and less mechanical. Effort shifts from repeating the same procedures each year to focusing on where risk is changing and where controls need attention.
Aligning Early to Reduce Audit Friction
Continuous auditing only reduces effort when it is aligned early with external auditors. That alignment includes agreement on data sources, analytic logic, thresholds, exception handling, and evidence retention. When these conversations occur late, analytics can unintentionally create new questions. When they occur early, continuous auditing can reduce reperformance, smooth timing, and support reliance decisions without reducing rigor.
A Realistic Path Forward for FY26
For most organizations, FY26 represents a foundational year rather than an end state. A small number of well‑designed, consistently executed routines will deliver more value than an ambitious but fragmented rollout. As thresholds are refined, false positives are reduced, and workflows embedded into normal operations, continuous auditing becomes part of how SOX is executed rather than an overlay.
Closing Thoughts
A mature SOX program is not defined by how many controls are tested. It is defined by how early risks are identified, how clearly control precision is demonstrated, and how consistently issues are resolved.
Continuous auditing supports that maturity by introducing a repeatable rhythm of risk and control assessment throughout the year. For organizations preparing for FY26, it offers a practical path toward a more focused, efficient, and sustainable SOX program.
Explore the rest of the series for more actionable insights:
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: FY2025 SOX Close‑Out and Lessons Learned
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: FY2026 SOX Scope and Risk Assessment
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: External Auditor Alignment
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: Balancing a Risk-Based SOX Program with External Auditor Needs
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: SOX IT General Controls and System-Dependent Controls
- Strengthen SOX Compliance: Third-Party Service Providers and SOC Reports
If you have questions about refining your SOX approach or want to discuss how to strengthen your internal processes, reach out to the Schneider Downs team at [email protected].
About Schneider Downs Risk Advisory
Our team of experienced risk advisory professionals focus on collaborating with your organization to identify and effectively mitigate risks. Our goal is to understand not only the risks related to potential loss to the organization, but to drive solutions that add value to your organization and advise on opportunities to ensure minimal disruption to your business.
Explore our full Risk Advisory Service offerings or contact the team at [email protected].
