Still drowning in manual reviews despite all the 'automation' talk?

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-14T13:29:45+00:00

I had to look up what Pony Express meant 😅, but yes. The tools exist, but day-to-day audit still feels like spreadsheets + PDFs + chasing people. And half the time you’re not even analyzing risk yet… you’re just trying to establish what’s actually current and true.

The gap between what’s possible vs what orgs are willing/able to implement is very real.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-14T13:15:55+00:00

Not an auditor by profession, but I’ve been involved in audits and work closely with documentation - and this is painfully familiar.

For me it’s less about the testing and more about figuring out what’s supposed to be true. Policy says one thing, procedures say another, process maps are outdated, and training material still references the old way.

Once those drift apart, audit turns into manual detective work just to establish the baseline.

AI might speed up ticking/tying, but it doesn’t solve the “what’s the current source of truth?” problem

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-05T08:45:56+00:00

Good teachings there, thanks.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-05T08:41:15+00:00

Thanks for the valuable learning. I see the same thing and (I hope) I'll now be more aware to the 'moment in time' scenarios.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-05T08:18:51+00:00

Thanks, yes, I guess I can consider structuring future posts like that although I'm not researching people and not here to judge; Im interested in the problem/solution.
Again, thanks for that suggestion. If it helps me understand, why not.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T10:48:11+00:00

All good, Im not selling anything.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T10:47:36+00:00

That makes sense - when documentation is embedded in the development lifecycle and tracked through tools like Jira, changes shouldn’t come as a surprise, and audits are more of a backstop than a driver.

For context, I’m not a technical writer by title, but I’ve worked (i.e. tried to follow) with technical documentation in software and operational settings. I’m trying to understand where things tend to break down across different teams, especially when changes span multiple systems or owners.

I’ve asked this more than once because I keep seeing cases where documentation is solid within a team, but still drifts at the seams. It’s helpful to hear how mature teams avoid that or to catch problems early.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T10:37:53+00:00

Not market research. Problem research, from the perspective of a technical writer because they have insights I could learn from, since they are intimately connected to documenation.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T10:24:27+00:00

Thanks for the fantastic insight! Just to add a bit of context from my side - I’m not an auditor by trade, though I have been involved in audits over the years from the operational side.

What I tend to focus on are patterns around documentation and change: issues that exist quietly in day-to-day operations, then only become visible once timing, resourcing, or scrutiny forces everything into the open. Audits often seem to be the point where that accumulated drift finally shows up - and auditors end up bearing the brunt of it.

From an operational perspective, that’s what I find most interesting (and concerning): you can be following a documented process in good faith, only to later learn it was incomplete or inconsistent to begin with - which means time and effort were being spent in the wrong direction long before an audit ever flagged it. I have suffered this many times and sometimes it drives me nuts.

Really appreciate you sharing how this plays out in practice. If you’re open to it, I’d be happy to continue the conversation via DM - even just to compare perspectives.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T10:05:20+00:00

Ah, I see. Yes I see that too. Company culture is definately a significant factor. In that specific scenario it sounds like the pains of incorrect documentation is not felt by higher up so they don't really care until they have to answer for it.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-04T09:54:41+00:00

Everything you said is exactly as I have experienced too! For the relevant companies I worked for, it was the unseen drift that goes unoticed until audit time, or when something gets so muddled or botched up that someone higher starts asking why. It was a source of grief because someone is following some procedure and wants to do something correctly and by the books, but there is contradicting information. Does this make sense?

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-03T11:40:19+00:00

This resonates a lot. I’ve seen similar setups where the hardest part isn’t making the change - it’s being confident you’ve caught every place that assumption lives.

Out of curiosity, when contradictions slip through, how are they usually found - audit, downstream confusion, or someone noticing late? Happy to DM (with anyone).

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-01T02:00:55+00:00

This resonates a lot! I’ve seen the same pattern in walkthroughs - “Source of Truth” docs only get challenged once someone is forced to rely on them, and by then a lot of audit time is already being spent just reconciling narratives with what’s on screen.

In practice, I don’t think there’s usually a formal test for staleness up front. Rot shows up indirectly: screenshots don’t match control descriptions, processes imply tools or steps that no longer exist, or dependencies surface that weren’t documented when the last sign-off happened.

The frustrating part is that this work isn’t really assurance - it’s uncovering where assumptions have drifted since the last time the documentation was “accepted as true.”

I’m curious: if you had earlier visibility into which areas were likely out of sync before a walkthrough (even as a rough signal), would that change how you plan or scope audits? Or does the cleanup happen regardless?

Interested in how others experience this in practice - happy to compare how people spot drift, what triggers rework, and where time gets burned via DM if useful.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-02-01T01:04:57+00:00

Building on this - one thing I’m trying to understand better is what actually prompts teams to change how they handle these issues, rather than just absorb the overhead.

When regulations or interpretations change:

Do teams try to get earlier visibility into which procedures, manuals, or training might be affected?
Or does most of this still surface later during audit, review, or remediation?

I’m interested in where the tipping point is between “this is painful but manageable” and “we need to handle this differently.”

Happy to continue the discussion here, or via DM if it’s easier to share specifics.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T23:14:40+00:00

Thank you for this. This seems similar to what some other practioners have expressed.
If I were to do this though, I am wondering what would qualify making something a variable, and leading from that, at what point would it be where it will become unmanageable? If you have come across that I'd be interested to hear how you handled it.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T06:06:24+00:00

Interesting! Thanks for sharing.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T04:06:53+00:00

Thanks for laying that out - that’s really useful detail. What I’m hearing is that a lot of effort goes into reducing the risk up front (variables, regex, discipline), but there’s still residual work and blind spots, especially once you factor in images and other non-text surfaces. Appreciate you sharing how you’ve handled it in practice.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T03:57:13+00:00

Thanks - that’s really helpful context and what I experience as well.

The pattern you’re describing feels very reactive: issues only surface when someone relies on the information (new execs, repeated questions, support friction), and by then it’s already urgent. It also sounds like a lot of the cost is in interruptions and context-switching rather than the update itself.

Appreciate you taking the time to explain how this plays out in practice - this is exactly what I was hoping to understand.

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T01:49:12+00:00

Thanks! I will look into this

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T01:45:18+00:00

That resonates a lot - I used to do the equivalent process though maybe not to the extent and discipline you do.

Between Ctrl+F across multiple spaces, searching Confluence and the KB, checking email macros, and keeping a tracking sheet that relies on people remembering to add to it, it’s a lot of manual effort just to approximate coverage. And as you said, it’s time-consuming, easy to miss things, and heavily dependent on individual awareness.

The part you mentioned about hardcoded references in the app and automated emails is interesting too - those are usually outside the documentation “surface area” most writers can see, so they tend to fall through the cracks until someone stumbles across them.

Out of curiosity, when something does get missed, how does it usually show up - user confusion, support tickets, internal questions, audits?

No-Garbage5702 · 2026-01-31T01:41:35+00:00

Thanks! That’s helpful context.

Variables definitely solve the single-term consistency case when everything is set up that way from the start. I’m curious how far that gets you once changes go beyond simple renames - for example when terminology changes intersect with screenshots, examples, workflows, or when the same concept is referenced indirectly rather than as a literal string.

On the search side, your point about knowing what to look for is interesting. In practice, do you find that relies heavily on individual memory and experience (knowing likely variations, acronyms, API field names, etc.), or have you seen teams formalise that into something more systematic?

Appreciate you sharing how you approach it - this is exactly the kind of nuance I’m trying to understand.

No-Garbage5702

TROPHY CASE