Audit and finding control
Capture findings, assign owners and retain review history across internal assurance workflows.
Legal register guide
A practical ClariDuty guide to requirements, applicability, owners, evidence and review dates. Keep ownership, evidence, actions and review history connected without replacing competent legal or technical judgement.
Capture findings, assign owners and retain review history across internal assurance workflows.
Separate completion from verification to support stronger corrective-action governance.
Keep controlled records and supporting evidence linked to the workflow that depends on them.
Compare open actions and assurance status across sites without removing local accountability.
Record the applicable process, location, people and evidence needed for requirements, applicability, owners, evidence and review dates.
Record findings or required controls, attach supporting evidence and assign accountable owners with realistic deadlines.
Track progress, verify completion where appropriate and preserve the audit trail rather than overwriting the original record.
ClariDuty is designed to keep findings, ownership, evidence, verification and audit history connected so teams do not have to reconstruct the compliance story from separate spreadsheets, inboxes and folders.
ClariDuty 365 offers subscription options for single-site and multi-site organisations. Current pricing and buying guidance should be confirmed on the live pricing page before purchase.
Only evidence mapped to currently working product behaviour is listed here.
Explore the connected controls that support the same audit trail, ownership and evidence model.
A useful approach should cover requirements, applicability, owners, evidence and review dates, with clear ownership, evidence, review dates and corrective action where gaps are found.
ClariDuty can structure the records, evidence, actions, reminders and review history around the workflow while responsible people retain accountability for competent and legal decisions.
No. Software supports control, consistency and evidence. Competent people remain responsible for legal interpretation, technical decisions, approvals and statutory duties.