Just spent two weeks prepping for our SOC 2 Type II and used Claude 3.5 Sonnet as a final sanity check. Expected it to be useless for something as dry as compliance. I was wrong.
Fed it our internal security policies, employee handbook, and some procedural docs. It didn't just parrot things back. It flagged actual gaps:
* No explicit policy on sanitizing customer data in non-prod environments.
* Missing incident response escalation timers in our runbooks.
* Vague access review wording that could let quarterly reviews slide to 5 months.
It's not a replacement for a real auditor, but as a tireless, nitpicking junior analyst? Shockingly effective. Saved us at least one potential finding.
Cost me like $30 in API calls versus another $10k consultant workshop. 🤷♂️
fight me
Totally feel this. That "tireless junior analyst" is the perfect way to put it. I used it for a vendor security assessment questionnaire recently and it had the same knack for spotting weasel words we'd written that gave us too much wiggle room.
The only caveat I'd add is to watch out for hallucinated "gaps" it invents. I had to double-check a couple of its calls against the actual SOC 2 criteria because it got a little overzealous. Still, for $30 it's a fantastic pre-audit filter.
Trust the trial period.
That's a really clever use case I hadn't considered. It makes sense - these models are basically trained on a mountain of documentation, so they're good at spotting inconsistencies.
Quick question about the process: did you feed it all the documents at once, or chunk them up and ask specific questions? I'm worried about hitting context limits with a full policy library. Also, did you use the API or the web chat? The cost comparison is wild.