A compliance review notice is the start of a negotiation, not the arrival of a bill. The exposure number is an opening position built on the most expensive interpretation of every ambiguity, and almost all of it is contestable. The first finding is rarely the number that gets paid.
A Microsoft compliance review is an adversarial process dressed in administrative language. The exposure it produces is an opening position built on the most expensive reading of every ambiguity, and almost all of it is contestable. These are the questions buyers bring to us when a notice arrives, or when one is feared. For the firm wide approach see audit defense.
Across 340 engagements the average reduction in audit financial exposure has been 79 percent. The number on the first finding is rarely the number that gets paid.
Do not respond substantively, and do not begin handing over data, until you have read the audit clause in your own contract and set a posture. The first move is to control scope, timeline, and the channel of communication. A measured acknowledgment that buys time to prepare is worth far more than a fast, cooperative data dump. See what to do when a notice arrives.
No. The shortfall an audit produces is an opening position, not a settled liability. It is typically built on the most expensive interpretation of every ambiguity. A defensible effective license position, combined with scrutiny of the auditor's counting methodology, routinely reduces the number substantially. Across the practice the average reduction in audit financial exposure has been 79 percent. See audit defense.
Often, yes. The audit clause in your agreement governs what Microsoft and its auditor are actually entitled to, and the practical scope is frequently broader in the request than in the contract. Negotiating scope, the products in review, the entities, the time period, is one of the most effective early moves. See audit scope negotiation.
Microsoft usually engages a third party, often one of the major accounting firms, to conduct the review on its behalf. The auditor's methodology is contestable and their findings are a draft, not a verdict. Managing that relationship and rebutting findings on the data is central to the defense. See third party auditor.
A typical compliance review runs several months from notice to settlement, though the timeline is partly within your control through scope and pacing. The aim is not to delay for its own sake but to ensure each stage proceeds on a prepared position rather than a reactive one. See typical audit timeline.
Yes. The settlement is a negotiation, not an invoice. Once findings are rebutted on the data, the remaining exposure is settled against commercial levers, frequently including the next renewal, which is why audit and renewal strategy should be run together rather than in isolation. See settlement negotiation.
A self assessment ahead of any notice is the strongest defensive position there is, because it lets you find and remediate gaps on your own timeline rather than under audit pressure. It also produces the reconciled position you will need if a review ever comes. See self audit pre emption.
User and device CAL mismatches, SQL Server and Windows Server virtualization counting, Microsoft 365 add on stacking, and Dynamics multiplexing are recurring themes. Each turns on interpretation of the Product Terms, which is exactly where a prepared buyer position changes the outcome. See the SQL Server traps and CAL guidance.
Yes. We are engaged at every stage, from the first notice through settlement. Coming in mid review, we reconstruct the position, challenge the methodology, and reframe the negotiation. Buyer side only, with no relationship to Microsoft or its auditors. Reach the practice through contact.
We are engaged from the first notice through settlement. We reconstruct the position, challenge the methodology, and settle the exposure against commercial levers, frequently the next renewal.