RPA Bot Audit Trail Versioning Evidence Lookup
Check supplied RPA identification, change, run, output-review, and exception-testing evidence for audit-trail readiness.
Description
A robotic process automation (RPA) audit trail needs identifiable versions and supporting execution/review evidence.
A robotic process automation (RPA) audit trail needs identifiable versions and supporting execution/review evidence. Identification text alone is not sufficient.1
The returned values include Audit-trail evidence ready, Evidence issues, Issue labels. The How section below explains the calculation, input rules and interpretation.
When to use RPA Bot Audit Trail Versioning Evidence Lookup
Use RPA Bot Audit Trail Versioning Evidence Lookup when you need to evaluate the supplied records under the calculation and evidence rules below. lastRunDate is nonblank text, not a validated date. No bot execution, log inspection or version authenticity is verified.
Prepare source-backed observations and the applicable engagement policy before entering facts. Use consistent monetary units and periods. Supply all boolean evidence flags explicitly, and treat a successful screen as a reason to continue professional review.
How to use RPA Bot Audit Trail Versioning Evidence Lookup and understand its results
- Prepare source-backed observations and the applicable engagement policy before entering facts. Use consistent monetary units and periods. Supply all boolean evidence flags explicitly, and treat a successful screen as a reason to continue professional review.
- Enter automationName, changeApprovalId, exceptionHandlingTested, executionLogsComplete, lastRunDate, outputReviewEvidence, version using the field table and calculation rules, then run the tool.
- Read evidenceReady, issueCount, issues. The explanation below defines the units, signs, ordering and any flags or placeholder values.
- If the tool reports an input issue, correct the values and run it again. Apply the stated assumptions when interpreting a successfully returned result.
| Input field | Meaning | Value type; see rules below | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| automationName | Automation name | string | Required |
| changeApprovalId | Change approval ID | string | Required |
| exceptionHandlingTested | Exception handling tested | boolean | Required |
| executionLogsComplete | Execution logs complete | boolean | Required |
| lastRunDate | Last run date | string | Required |
| outputReviewEvidence | Output review evidence | boolean | Required |
| version | Automation version | string | Required |
Require four nonblank identification strings and three booleans. Add issues for incomplete logs, missing output review and untested exception handling in that order. Return issues/count and ready flag.
ready=logsComplete AND outputReview AND exceptionTested Units, indexing, boundary conditions and exceptional cases are defined in the calculation rules above.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| evidenceReady | Audit-trail evidence ready | boolean |
| issueCount | Evidence issues | integer; minimum: 0 |
| issues | Issue labels | list of string |
{
"input": {
"automationName": "Daily AP Invoice Posting",
"changeApprovalId": "CHG-2041",
"exceptionHandlingTested": true,
"executionLogsComplete": true,
"lastRunDate": "2026-09-23",
"outputReviewEvidence": false,
"version": "3.2.1"
},
"output": {
"evidenceReady": false,
"issueCount": 1,
"issues": [
"output_review_missing"
]
}
}Limitations and assumptions
lastRunDate is nonblank text, not a validated date. No bot execution, log inspection or version authenticity is verified.
Numeric inputs, where present, must be finite. Follow the calculation-specific rules for overflow, underflow and exceptional cases. Extremely large text inputs are rejected. Missing fields without a declared default, extra fields, wrong value types and violations of the calculation rules are input errors. A successfully returned false flag is an evaluated outcome; its meaning is explained above.
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use Log Analysis User Role ITGC Sample Extraction Steps: IT general control (ITGC) log records need several source fields for follow-up testing. This check uses presence flags rather than parsing logs. For a complementary task, use Electronic Workpaper Binder Signature Rollforward Lookup: Electronic workpaper rows can record signature, version and hash-match evidence. Equality of version counts is independent of document issues.
References
Similar or alternative tools
- Log Analysis User Role ITGC Sample Extraction Steps
IT general control (ITGC) log records need several source fields for follow-up testing. This check uses presence flags rather than parsing logs.
- Electronic Workpaper Binder Signature Rollforward Lookup
Electronic workpaper rows can record signature, version and hash-match evidence. Equality of version counts is independent of document issues.