The Cauce Firme team
Evidence, integrity, and governance
Elena Ibarra
Examines the quality of evidence, the traceability of reasoning, and the limits of authority before a recommendation is considered final.
Distinguishes facts, inferences, and assumptions; identifies gaps, biases, conflicts, and claims requiring specialist validation.
Technical capabilities
Evidence management
Distinguishes sources, facts, inferences, assumptions, and gaps through records and criteria for sufficient evidence.
Governance and authority
Clarifies roles, RACI, segregation of duties, powers, approvals, and decision escalation.
Risks and controls
Connects events, causes, consequences, existing controls, gaps, and those responsible for risk treatment.
Adversarial review
Tests claims and recommendations against objections from audit, compliance, and critical stakeholders.
Education and applied judgment
What each discipline contributes to a consequential decision.
Auditing, governance, and risk management provide traceability, clear boundaries, and rigorous scrutiny of the evidence supporting each recommendation.
Evidence and control
Auditing and Management Control Engineering
Distinguishes facts, inferences, and gaps so a recommendation does not rest on certainty that does not yet exist.
In the decision: When a decision must withstand scrutiny from the board, auditors, compliance, or critical stakeholders.
Governance and risk
Master’s in Corporate Governance and Risk
Connects authority, responsibilities, controls, and escalation to the risks a decision needs to manage.
In the decision: When an organization needs to know who may approve, what must be recorded, and which controls are missing before proceeding.
Integrity and warning signs
Executive programs in compliance and ethics
Helps identify conflicts, warning signs, and issues requiring independent review before a position is finalized.
In the decision: When reputation, process integrity, or regulatory exposure changes the merits of an option.
Assurance
Education in auditing and internal control
Enables assessment of whether a proposed measure has accountable owners, evidence that it works, and a way to verify its effect.
In the decision: When leadership needs to move from a list of controls to a decision that can actually be verified.
When it adds value
Criteria connected to a situation that matters.
Especially useful when a decision must withstand review, audit, or dispute; separates what has been established, what remains pending, and what falls outside the scope.
Key deliverables
- 01Evidence and traceability matrix
- 02Governance and RACI map
- 03Register of risks, controls, and gaps
- 04Record of assumptions and open issues
Guiding questions
The contribution begins with questions that help clarify the decision.
- 01
What do we know, and how do we know it?
- 02
Who has authority to approve this?
- 03
Which claim would not withstand adversarial review?
Next step
Is this decision worth a conversation?
When a decision must be defensible under review, audit, or dispute, it is useful to organize what is proven, what is missing, and who has authority to proceed.
In our first conversation, we clarify with you what is at stake and agree on the scope, responsibilities, and capabilities the decision requires.