Balancing Automation & Human Expertise in SOC2 Compliance

For over a decade, we have guided businesses through the complexities of technology and regulation, reshaping internal controls and processes to meet stringent information security and compliance requirements.

As security breaches grow in volume and impact, scrutiny of organizations’ internal controls has intensified. Businesses now demand more reliable ways to assess their reliance on service providers. Today, SOC 2 compliance has become a critical business requirement. SOC 2 attestation has emerged as a primary measure of service-provider risk, alongside internationally recognized frameworks such as ISO 27001 and CSA STAR. For many, an SOC2 report is no longer optional as it is the baseline for doing business.

As data breaches and cyberattacks rise, scrutiny of internal controls has intensified, making SOC 2 compliance a baseline requirement for doing business alongside frameworks like ISO 27001 and CSA STAR. According to IBISWorld,

“Heightened data hacks and leaks have caused an uptick in demand for security software”

The number of U.S. cloud security software providers grew to more than 535 in 2025 and is projected to keep climbing through 2030 (see Figure 1). This steady expansion underscores why enterprise buyers increasingly demand SOC 2 audit reports as proof of strong security and governance.

Figure 1

First-time SOC 2 candidates often struggle due to limited experience, unclear scoping, and lack of internal expertise. Automation platforms have stepped in to fill this gap, offering streamlined evidence collection, control monitoring, and readiness tracking. While these tools accelerate progress, they cannot substitute for informed governance, disciplined scoping, and professional judgment. SOC 2 audit readiness requires both automation and expert insight.

Without this balance, automation risks shifting rather than eliminating work, leaving blind spots that surface late in the engagement. The key to SOC 2 readiness lies in combining the efficiency of automation with the insight and rigor that only human expertise can provide.

Case Study: SaaS Provider Entering the Enterprise Market

One of our engagements involved assisting a SaaS company serving critical infrastructure operators. As the business grew, the company began entering the enterprise market, where prospects required a SOC 2 audit report to evaluate its internal controls.

The client had subscribed to an automated compliance management tool, expecting it would accelerate their readiness. By the tool’s own assessment, they had already achieved over 80% compliance. They approached us anticipating only minor adjustments before being fully prepared for a SOC 2 audit.

Like many high-growth technology companies, the client operated within a decentralized control environment. Certain technical controls—such as change management—were implemented under proper governance, but operational and non-technical controls were scattered across the organization with inconsistent oversight. A formal risk management process was absent, aside from a template provided by the tool. Consequently, the organization was attempting to comply with more than 150 controls recommended by the tool, many of which were unnecessary with their actual operating environment.

Risk-First Sequencing vs. Control Sprawl

Our approach began with identifying and assessing risks, mapping existing processes to the Trust Services Criteria (TSC), and tailoring controls to close residual gaps. This risk-first sequencing countered the tool’s overreach, prevented control inflation, halved implementation effort, and streamlined evidence collection for the eventual SOC 2 Type 2 audit.

As a result, the control set was reduced from more than 150 to just 62 targeted controls, each mapped to actual business needs and SOC 2 compliance requirements.

By pinpointing risks and analyzing existing controls, we designed a readiness strategy outlining the critical changes the organization needed to implement. This included a targeted control list, aligning each control with actual business needs rather than the tool’s default recommendations.

The strategy also involved tailoring the tool’s provided documentation to reflect the organization’s reality and developing missing documents to formalize requirements, roles, and responsibilities. With the readiness plan aligned to the AICPA’s TSC requirements, the organization rolled out a properly structured governance model that included commitments to meet the requirements of its interested parties.

By the end of the project, the client had a control environment that was accurate, reliable, and compliant with external requirements, supported by clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and reporting lines. We also optimized their use of the automation tool by configuring it to monitor compliance effectively, ensuring they understood its role as a support mechanism, not an unquestioned authority.

Automation Accelerates, Expertise Steers

Compliance automation tools can accelerate monitoring, management, and evidence collection—but only when their output is interpreted and directed by experienced professionals. These tools typically come with one-size-fits-all controls that are often misaligned with a customer’s risk appetite, internal control framework, or auditors’ expectations. Generic lists tend to over-prescribe work, overlook business-specific nuances, and significantly inflate the resources required for readiness.

Our role was to translate the Trust Services Criteria requirements into pragmatic tasks, design a right-sized control environment, and coach control owners so that controls were embedded into daily operations—not used solely during an audit. In dedicated workshops, we uncovered ten previously missed risks and misaligned processes and rewrote the system description to accurately reflect actual data flows, responsibilities, and service boundaries. This targeted approach saved four weeks from the readiness timeline and avoided a substantial amount of unnecessary engineering effort.

Automation accelerates, expertise steers. Automated compliance platforms can accelerate evidence gathering, but they are not a self-sufficient solution. Genuine audit readiness demands a disciplined balance between efficient tooling and seasoned professional insight.

Engagement Outcomes (8 Weeks)

Our eight-week engagement delivered measurable results and clarified the conditions for sustaining compliance:

• Sharper insight: More than ten previously untracked risks were entered into a risk register, now reviewed on a set schedule.
• Leaner testing: The control set was reduced from more than 150 to 62, cutting audit-testing effort by almost one-third.
• Audit-ready evidence: A complete system description, policies, and artifacts were designed and documented.
• Continuous oversight: Dashboards now surface control issues within a month instead of quarterly.

Sustaining SOC 2 Readiness

To maintain these results long after the first audit, anchor SOC 2 readiness in disciplined, repeatable practices:

1. Begin with a risk-based scoping workshop before importing any template controls to prevent control sprawl.
2. Map every control to an existing workflow so ownership is explicit and “shadow processes” do not emerge.
3. Review dashboard metrics with process owners monthly; escalate items open longer than 30 days to management.
4. Keep the system description current and run semi-annual, targeted internal audit drills to validate non-technical controls under real conditions.

Conclusion and Path Forward 

SOC 2 readiness is not achieved by software alone. SOC 2 compliance automation platforms accelerate progress, but their value is realized only when guided by professionals who understand both the letter and the intent of the Trust Services Criteria.

By cutting the control set from more than 150 to 62 precisely aligned controls, uncovering risks missed by automation, and establishing continuous oversight, the client moved from a scattered compliance posture to a structured, sustainable framework. The result was not just passing an audit; it was building a control environment resilient to changes in business operations, technology, and regulatory expectations.

For organizations facing similar pressures from enterprise buyers or regulators, the path forward is clear: establish executive ownership, run a risk scoping workshop before activating any compliance platform, and align resources early to avoid control sprawl. SOC 2 readiness is most efficient when technology is configured to serve the organization’s workflows, not dictate them. Automation accelerates, expertise steers.