Audits
A structured look at how your transaction logic behaves under unusual conditions
An audit engagement examines your automated transaction processing system through scenarios designed around timing, concurrency, and data edge cases, not generic functional checks.
What's actually being reviewed
Is this a code review or a systems review?
Neither, exactly. We're not reading your codebase line by line, and we're not just checking configuration values. The review sits between those two things: we trace how data actually moves through your transaction pipeline under specific conditions, then compare that behavior against what the system is supposed to do.
That means looking at logs from real (or realistically simulated) load, examining how retries interact with idempotency keys, and checking what your reconciliation job actually produces when a batch runs twice by accident. The goal is behavioral evidence, not a checklist tick.
Common questions
Questions teams usually ask before starting
Do you need production access?
No. Reviews are typically conducted against a sandbox or staging environment that mirrors production closely enough to be useful, along with relevant historical logs shared under agreed terms.
How long does an engagement take?
Duration depends on the complexity of the transaction flow being reviewed and how much documentation already exists. Scope and timeline are agreed together before work starts, rather than fixed in advance.
What does the report contain?
Each finding includes a description of the condition, reproduction steps where applicable, and a relative severity assessment. Findings are grouped by category so engineering teams can prioritize efficiently.
Do you fix the issues you find?
No. We identify and document conditions for your engineering team to address. Remediation stays with the people who know the codebase and its constraints best.
Can this run alongside our existing QA?
Generally, yes. Reviews are designed to complement existing manual and automated test suites rather than replace them, focusing specifically on scenarios those suites weren't built to catch.
Infrastructure context
Reviewing systems across different infrastructure setups
Automated transaction systems are built on very different foundations: some run on managed cloud payment infrastructure, others on custom-built settlement engines, others still on a mix of legacy batch processing and newer event-driven services. We adapt our scenario design to whichever setup applies, rather than applying one fixed methodology regardless of context.
For teams running distributed architectures, particular attention goes to message ordering, queue behavior, and how failures in one service propagate (or fail to propagate) to dependent services downstream.
Deliverables
What you receive at the end of a review
- Written findings reportOrganized by category, with reproduction context for each item.
- Severity guidanceRelative prioritization based on likely impact and frequency.
- Walkthrough sessionA structured discussion with your engineering and risk teams.
- Scenario library notesDocumentation of the specific edge cases tested for future reference.
- Follow-up availabilityTime reserved for clarifying questions after the report is delivered.