About 30 minutes to set up · claude.ai only

Prepare the narrative for a recurring audit or exam request

Today

The request list lands with sixty items. Six owners write six paragraphs from scratch at six levels of quality, internal audit comes back with follow ups on the vague ones, and the same scramble repeats next quarter.

With Claude

Every item comes back in the same five fields: what the control is, who performs it, how often, what evidence exists and where it lives, and what is genuinely missing. You find the holes at your desk in July rather than in the meeting.

The prompt

Paste this into claude.ai and replace anything in brackets.

You are helping a [community bank / credit union / lender] prepare written responses for a recurring internal audit or examination request list. You are organizing what we already know. You are not asserting that anything is compliant.

Do not paste examination reports, examiner correspondence, draft or final findings, or any other confidential supervisory information. Those records belong to your regulator and disclosure to third parties is restricted. Do not paste customer records. Describe the control in your own words.

The request, in the requester's words:
[paste the item or items from the request list]
What the control actually is, in my words:
[who does what, how often, in what system]
Evidence I know exists: [reports, logs, checklists, tickets, minutes, and where each one lives]
What I already know is thin or missing: [state it, or leave blank]

Absolute rules:
- Use only what I told you. Never assert that a control exists, operates as designed, is effective, or satisfies a requirement. Never name a regulation, citation, or standard I did not give you.
- Where I have not identified evidence, write "no evidence identified" rather than describing evidence that would make sense. That gap is the reason we are doing this now.
- Where the response would state a conclusion only compliance or internal audit can state, write [COMPLIANCE: the specific question] instead of stating it.

For each item, produce the same five fields: the request restated in one line, what the control is, who performs it and how often, the evidence and where it lives, and what is missing or unclear.

Then produce two lists: every item with no evidence identified, ordered by how exposed it leaves us, and the questions to send back to the requester where the ask itself is ambiguous.

Plain language, no adjectives, nothing that reads as an assurance.

What to skip in banks and financial services firms

  • Customer records and identifiers do not go into a chat window, in any account. That means account and card numbers, full Social Security and taxpayer numbers, dates of birth, online banking credentials, signature cards, core exports, wire instructions, loan files carrying borrower income and asset documents, and credit reports and scores. Two reasons, and they are separate. First, this is nonpublic personal information: Regulation P limits disclosure of it to nonaffiliated third parties and limits reuse, and the security standards your regulator enforces expect a written program and real diligence over any third party that touches customer information, which is exactly what the interagency third party risk guidance the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC issued in June 2023 covers for banks of every size, community banks included. Credit unions get the same questions from NCUA. Second, a consumer report was pulled for a permissible purpose under FCRA, which allows a report to be furnished for listed purposes and no others, and pasting a tri merge into a chat is a use nobody documented. Work at the policy and summary level, paste the language and not the file, and settle the account and vendor question with whoever owns compliance before anything live moves.
  • Nothing that touches a credit decision. Not approving, denying, pricing, risk grading, granting an exception, working out debt to income or a coverage ratio that feeds the decision, and above all not drafting the specific reasons on an adverse action notice. Regulation B requires the statement of reasons to be specific, to indicate the principal reasons, and to relate to and accurately describe the factors actually considered, and CFPB Circular 2022-03 says plainly that a creditor may not use a model when doing so means it cannot give specific and accurate reasons, and that not understanding your own method is not a defense. A paragraph that reads like a reason but was not the reason is a violation with your institution's name on it, with fair lending exposure underneath. Anthropic's Usage Policy points the same way: loan approvals and determining eligibility or creditworthiness are named high risk, and home loans are named again under housing. The decision, the reasons, and the notice belong to your lender, your credit committee, and your written credit policy.
  • Suspicious activity reporting, and anything that would reach a customer as advice. A SAR, and any information that would reveal the existence of a SAR, is confidential under 31 CFR 1020.320(e), and no bank and no director, officer, employee, or agent of a bank may disclose it, so the narrative does not get drafted, polished, or rehearsed in a chat window, and neither does the alert that led to it. Examination reports and examiner correspondence stay out for a related reason: they are your regulator's records, not yours to hand to a third party. On the advisory side, Claude holds no registration and no license. No recommendation, no allocation, no security selection, no suitability or best interest conclusion, and nothing that reads to a client as investment advice. If your firm is a registered investment adviser or a broker dealer, your advertising, review, and recordkeeping obligations attach to whatever goes out, and a chat transcript is not part of your retention system.

Want all 4 workflows for banks and financial services firms in your inbox?

Every prompt on this page plus the rest, so you still have them on Monday. One email, then four short ones on making it stick. Unsubscribe any time.

Or answer four questions and Claude writes three workflows for your specific business rather than the industry generally.

Before you try it

More for banks and financial services firms

Full guide for banks and financial services firms