Intervention Readiness vs Audit
Audit attests retrospectively that controls operated. Intervention Readiness states, going forward, whether intervention can occur before harm becomes irreversible.
What Audit does.
Audit examines whether controls operated as intended over a period, against defined criteria, and forms an opinion an organisation can rely on. It is retrospective by design and produces an attestation about what already happened.
What each answers.
| Question | Audit | Intervention Readiness |
|---|---|---|
| Direction | Retrospective | Forward |
| Core question | Did the controls operate as intended? | Can intervention occur in time? |
| Output type | An opinion formed by the auditor | An assessment conclusion for which Intervene retains responsibility, with repeatable computation where the engine is used |
| Reproducibility | Depends on the auditor's judgement | Computation repeats under fixed inputs and versions; judgement is documented, not removed |
| What it cannot tell you | Whether the next window can be met | It answers exactly that |
How they relate.
Intervention Readiness is a distinct assurance type, not a variant of audit. An audit can confirm a halt control existed and was tested and still leave the central question open: when deviation begins, does the chain complete before the point of irreversibility. Audit looks back at controls. Intervention Readiness looks forward at capability. They answer different questions for different decisions.
How AGDA™ evidences it.
A full AGDA™ Assessment assesses evidence across detect, escalate, decide and intervene, applies evidence-quality constraints and chain propagation, and returns an Intervention Readiness verdict with its evidence basis. Where the engine is used, the same recorded inputs under fixed versions produce the same computed result. Scenario definition, evidence grading and interpretation remain Intervene's judgement, and that judgement is documented so it can be examined. Signed SEDI result records may be supplied only under an approved output-access arrangement, where the engagement terms provide for them and the delivery configuration supports them.
Frequently asked questions.
- How is Intervention Readiness different from audit?
- Audit attests retrospectively that controls operated against defined criteria. Intervention Readiness is a forward statement of whether intervention can occur before harm becomes irreversible.
- Is an AGDA™ verdict an audit opinion?
- No. An audit opinion attests to the past. An AGDA™ verdict is a forward assessment conclusion for which Intervene retains responsibility: where the engine is used, its computation repeats under fixed inputs and versions, and the judgement behind scope, evidence grading and interpretation is documented rather than removed.
- Does passing an audit mean intervention is possible?
- Not necessarily. An audit can confirm controls operated in the period under review and say nothing about whether the next harm window can be met. Past attestation is not forward capability.