If 2026 brings an opportunity clause — and the working group draft suggests it will — lead auditors need a concrete evidence model. Vague terms like 'consideration of opportunities' won't survive a thorough audit. Here's what to look for, and what to flag.
The four evidence categories
01
Artifact — the register itself exists and is current
02
Process — how entries enter, get scored and exit
03
Decision — pursuit calls tied to authority and date
04
Outcome — realized value compared to expectation
Twelve specific evidence items
- 01A document or system instance titled as an opportunity register.
- 02Entries dated within the last review cycle.
- 03Named owners — not 'the QA team' or 'leadership'.
- 04A scoring rubric documented and approved.
- 05Evidence the rubric is applied consistently across entries.
- 06A pursuit/close decision recorded for any entry older than one cycle.
- 07Linkage from at least one entry to a management review agenda.
- 08Linkage from at least one entry to a corrective or improvement action.
- 09Realized outcome captured for at least one closed pursuit.
- 10A defined trigger for adding new opportunities (not only annual planning).
- 11Cross-functional input — entries from outside the QA function.
- 12Evidence that closed-without-pursuit decisions were communicated.
How to phrase the audit question
Avoid 'do you consider opportunities?' — every auditee will say yes. Ask instead:
- Show me the three highest-ranked opportunities you decided not to pursue last cycle, and why.
- Walk me from one register entry to a management review minute.
- Which entry produced the largest realized value, and how do you know?
“The right question doesn't ask whether opportunities are considered. It asks where the trail of consideration leads.”