Continuous AssuMining

… Where the process mining for overall assurance, as e.g., @ConeyDataDriven do so well, may spill over into straightforward data point assurance. Of sorts.
Because, when one has visual petri nets (well… sort of) at the transactions level(s) all through the systems, wouldn’t it be dead easy to have tallies at stores and flows, that can be reported on – and when audited in real time, given assurance on! – in all their shining minute detail as compared to the late, very late after-the-fact yes even after-the-full-year-has-ran-its-course annual figures.

This would of course require auditors to sit by all the information flows as they go, and have controllers at hand to correct any single transactions (and reporting) that go unwarranted ways. But hey, there’s tons of fees there, right? So it will happen. In one form or another.
More importantly: No need to keep on dwelling in XML/XBRL quagmires; that level of operational capability would need to be stable or one would lose out. Hence one can from some stage on assume that all transactions are indeed captured and passed through the systems interfaces at all (lower) levels OR some balances will fail – that’s what balances are for. Having established that, the bliss of control room overview will come to administrative(!!)-information flows:
[Just plucked off the search results, for a refinery. But you get the idea…]

Would there be any roadblocks to this development? Your call.