The AI Audit That Spoke the Language of Compliance Officers

Yesterday, I ran an experiment I’ve been planning for weeks:
Could GPT-5 run a multi-framework compliance audit clause by clause, control by control and deliver a board-ready gap report that a seasoned auditor would respect?

I wasn’t looking for a quick checklist.
I wanted something that could stand up in a board meeting or regulator review with:

Control IDs and legal article references
Accurate framework mappings
Risk prioritisation
Actionable remediation

Why This Matters

In regulated industries like fintech, healthcare, and government services, compliance readiness isn’t optional. Saudi PDPL penalties can reach SAR 5 million per violation. SOC 2 failures kill enterprise deals. ISO 27001 gaps block certification and shake client trust.

Audits traditionally take weeks to months and require cross-functional teams. Yesterday, I tested if GPT-5 could compress that into one continuous, evidence-driven output.

The Test Company: DataVista Solutions

Fictional profile used to simulate the audit process
Industry: Fintech – Digital Payments
Location: Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
Size: 150 employees
Data Processed: Payment card data, transaction metadata, customer PII
Compliance Setup Before Audit:

MFA on admin accounts only
Basic privacy policy (no lawful basis mapping)
No formal ISMS policy or risk register
AWS cloud with default configurations
Annual penetration test; no continuous vulnerability scanning
No vendor due diligence process

From a compliance officer’s view, this is a partial maturity setup, functional in some areas, but dangerously exposed in others.

The GPT-5 Prompt I Used

Here’s the exact text I fed GPT-5.
You can paste it into GPT-5, replace the [brackets] with your own company’s details, and get your own control-by-control report.

You are a Chief Compliance Auditor with 20+ years of experience auditing against:
Saudi PDPL


SOC 2 (Trust Services Criteria)


ISO/IEC 27001:2022


Task: Perform a full, control-by-control gap assessment for the following organization:
 Company Name: [Insert Name]
 Industry: [Insert]
 Location: [Insert]
 Size: [Insert number of employees]
 Data Processed: [PII, financial, health, etc.]
 Data Storage: [Cloud, on-premises, hybrid]
 Data Transfers: [Local only, cross-border, specify countries]
 Current Certifications: [List]
 Existing Policies: [List all policies]
 Security Controls in Place: [List]
 Incident Response Process: [Describe]
 Vendor Management Process: [Describe]
 Risk Management: [Describe or note absence]
 Known Audit Findings: [List]
 Business Objectives: [Relevant to compliance]
Output in the following exact order and format:

1. Executive Summary
Overall Compliance Maturity (%)
Risk Level (Low / Medium / High)
Framework Scores: PDPL %, SOC 2 %, ISO 27001 %
3–5 Strengths
5–7 Urgent Items the Board Must Know

2. PDPL Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 8 Articles)
Columns: Article #, Requirement, Status (Green = Compliant, Yellow = Partial, Red = Missing), Evidence Found/Missing, Gap Description, Risk Rating, Recommendation, Effort Level, Owner Role

3. SOC 2 Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 8 Criteria)
Columns: TSC Category, Criteria ID, Requirement, Status, Evidence Found/Missing, Gap Description, Risk Rating, Recommendation, Effort Level, Owner Role

4. ISO 27001 Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 10 Clauses/Controls)
Columns: Clause/Control ID, Requirement, Status, Evidence Found/Missing, Gap Description, Risk Rating, Recommendation, Effort Level, Owner Role

5. Findings Grouped by Risk Level
High Risk: List all from all frameworks
Medium Risk: List all from all frameworks
Low Risk: List all from all frameworks

6. Prioritized Remediation Roadmap
Priority 1 – Critical (0–30 days): List items; mark “Quick Wins”
Priority 2 – High (31–90 days): List items
Priority 3 – Medium (90+ days): List items
Show dependencies (if fixing one helps close others)

7. Risk of Inaction
Regulatory penalties (PDPL fines, SOC 2 deal loss, ISO certification delays)
Contractual/business risks
Operational impacts
Realistic incident scenarios

8. Ending Summary for Board
Concise statement on current posture, % risk reduction if Priority 1 closed, strategic benefit & ROI of remediation

Formatting Rules:
All findings must be presented in boardroom-ready tables
Color-code statuses: Green = Compliant, Yellow = Partial, Red = Missing
No sections omitted, even if compliant in all areas

The Output – Audit Highlights

1. Executive Summary

Overall Compliance Maturity: 48%
Risk Level: High
Framework Scores: PDPL 40% · SOC 2 52% · ISO 27001 46%
Strengths (3–5):
- Privacy policy publicly available and referenced internally
- Annual penetration test completed with tracked remediation tickets
- MFA enforced for privileged/admin accounts
- Cloud environment segmented by workload (basic)
Urgent Items the Board Must Know (5–7):
- No DSAR process or appointed DPO (PDPL Arts. 12 & 24)
- Lawful basis not mapped to processing activities (PDPL Art. 14)
- MFA not enforced for all users; password policy weak (SOC 2 CC6.1, CC6.2)
- No ISMS policy or asset inventory (ISO A.5.1, A.8.1)
- Vulnerability management is annual only (ISO A.12.6)

2. PDPL Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 8 Articles)

3. SOC 2 Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 8 Criteria)

4. ISO 27001 Gap Analysis Table (Minimum 10 Controls)

5. Findings Grouped by Risk Level

High Risk
- PDPL: Arts. 12 (DSAR), 14 (Lawful basis), 24 (DPO), 21 (Cross-border safeguards), 19 (timelines)
- SOC 2: CC3.2 (Risk assessment), CC6.1/CC6.2 (MFA/passwords), CC5.3 (Vendors)
- ISO 27001: A.5.1 (ISMS), A.8.1 (Assets), A.12.6 (Vuln mgmt), A.18.1 (Legal)
Medium Risk
- PDPL: Art. 4 (Minimization), 26 (Retention)
- SOC 2: CC7.2 (Change mgmt), CC2.2 (Awareness)
- ISO 27001: A.6.1 (Roles), A.16.1 (Incident)
Low Risk

Governance polish items (e.g., policy formatting/metadata, minor procedural gaps)

6. Prioritized Remediation Roadmap (with dependencies & quick wins)

Priority 1 – Critical (0–30 days)

Enforce MFA for all users; implement NIST-aligned password policy (Quick win)
Draft/approve/publish ISMS policy; assign security roles (Dependencies: enables governance for other fixes)
Stand up DSAR SOP with intake/tracking; appoint DPO & publish contact (Legal/Comms coordination)
Embed breach notification timelines & regulator/customer flows into IR playbooks (Quick win if IR exists)
Create lawful basis register and update privacy notice accordingly

Priority 2 – High (31–90 days)

Centralized asset inventory (CMDB) integrated with provisioning & discovery (Depends on ISMS policy)
Formal risk assessment methodology; establish quarterly review cadence and risk register
Vendor due diligence program: collect SOC 2/ISO reports, add security clauses & SLAs (Depends on supplier policy draft)
Vulnerability management: monthly scans, CVSS scoring, remediation SLAs, mgmt reporting
Align data retention schedules across systems; automate deletion where possible

Priority 3 – Medium (90+ days)

Secure SDLC: formal gates, SAST/DAST, code review standards, secrets mgmt
Supplier security policy + periodic reassessments; contract refresh cycle
Compliance obligations register; policy library governance & annual review cycle
Incident tabletop simulations; lessons-learned into controls
Ongoing security awareness with role-based modules & phishing drills

Dependencies Overview

ISMS policy → enables role assignment, risk, supplier, and asset governance
Asset inventory → prerequisite for access reviews, vuln mgmt, and incident impact analysis
Supplier policy → prerequisite for vendor diligence & contract controls

Quick Wins (deliver in ≤2 weeks)

Org-wide MFA and password policy enforcement
Breach notification steps added to existing IR runbooks
DPO appointment memo + contact published

DSAR intake form + ticketing queue

7. Risk of Inaction

Regulatory: PDPL non-compliance exposure (DSAR, DPO, transfers, notification); greater scrutiny in audits/spot checks
Contractual/Commercial: SOC 2 readiness failures can stall or cancel enterprise deals; RFP losses due to weak ISMS evidence
Operational: Unmanaged vulnerabilities and missing asset inventory increase likelihood and blast radius of incidents
Reputational: Customer trust erosion due to delayed incident response or inability to honor privacy rights

8. Ending Summary for Board

DataVista exhibits partial compliance maturity with concentrated high-risk gaps in privacy governance, identity/access, and foundational ISMS controls. Executing Priority-1 actions in the next 30 days is expected to reduce regulatory and security exposure by ~70%, restore buyer confidence in due diligence, and create a governance base that accelerates Priority-2/3 improvements. The recommended sequence prioritizes fast, high-impact controls (MFA/passwords, DSAR/DPO, breach workflow, ISMS approval), unlocking dependent initiatives (asset inventory, vendor diligence, risk reviews) and positioning the organization for future certifications and enterprise growth.

Why Compliance Officers Take This Seriously

This isn’t a “quick AI checklist.”
It’s a control-by-control, framework-aligned, evidence-aware audit.
Every gap is tied to a clause or control ID, with risk assessment and practical remediation guidance.

Yesterday’s run convinced me that GPT-5, when guided correctly, can produce reports that match the structure and logic of a real compliance assessment — in minutes, not months.

Hi, I’m Ayesha,

I hope walking through this example was helpful. My goal is to show how compliance audits can be faster, sharper, and actually useful for decision-makers. If it sparked ideas for your own organization, feel free to connect with me or book a call.