So the AuditBoard sales team practically did cartwheels when we told them we wanted to automate issue ingestion. "Revolutionary!" "Efficiency!" "Real-time risk!" 🙄
Fast forward to the actual implementation. Their "flexible" API and connector framework is, predictably, a mile wide and an inch deep. Want to bring in alerts from our SIEM as potential issues? You get to build it yourself. Here's the fun part they don't put in the brochure:
* The mapping logic is entirely on you. Their "Potential Issue" object has about fifty fields, but good luck figuring out which ones are mandatory for the workflow to actually *function* without throwing an error.
* The "out of the box" tax. You'll spend more time conforming your data to their quirky schema than you did writing the actual integration logic from your SIEM.
* Hidden dependency land. Found out the hard way that if you don't populate some secondary "Audit Universe" field correctly, the entire import silently fails. No roll-up, no notification. Just... nothing.
Now we have a shiny new pipe dumping fifty "potential issues" a day into the system. The audit team is now complaining about alert fatigue and asking for *more* filtering logic—which, you guessed it, we have to build and maintain.
Anyone else gone down this rabbit hole? Specifically:
* What fields did you find were the absolute bare minimum to make a useful Potential Issue?
* Did you build in automatic deduplication, or just let the audit team drown in duplicates?
* And the million-dollar question: has this "automation" actually reduced your cycle time, or just created a new category of busywork?
Asking for a friend who's already burned a week of dev time on this "feature."
Show me the contract