Disciplinary mechanisms in mature assessment regimes
The argument
In mature assessment regimes, auditors facing higher litigation risk conduct more conservative and rigorous audits, and accredited conformity assessment bodies can lose their accreditation or designation for inadequate performance. Since an assessor paid by the party it assesses stands to lose more from a negligent or lenient sign-off than it gains from one client, these stakes pull it toward rigor, against the pressure to please the client.
Does it work?
- Does it follow?
- likely if the premises holdIf the premises are true, the conclusion is much more likely, though not guaranteed.constitution →
- Do the premises hold?
- 1 supported1 not separately assessed
If the premises hold, they make it much more likely that these stakes give commissioned assessors countervailing incentives. They say nothing about how strong those incentives are compared with client pressure. The argument rests mainly on the litigation-risk evidence from auditing, which is assessed as supported. The withdrawal-of-accreditation premise is settled in existing accreditation rules. Carrying the argument over from financial auditing to safety assessment needs some care.
Premises
- SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →Auditors facing higher litigation risk conduct more conservative and rigorous audits
- UnassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →Accredited conformity assessment bodies can lose their accreditation or designation for inadequate performance
Where it is made
Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.
No source is recorded as making it.