Automating the Administrative Burden: Intelligent Risk Identification in Compliance Work

Risk identification and management is core work for solicitors, data protection specialists, and compliance professionals. It requires expertise, judgment, and contextual understanding. What it should not require is hours of administrative form-filling — manually populating risk register fields, citing regulations, cross-referencing assessment sections, and formatting entries for consistency. Yet in most organisations, that is exactly what happens.

The disconnect is stark: highly trained professionals spend significant time on tasks that do not require their expertise. A data protection specialist may identify a risk in seconds — "There is a data minimisation concern with this processing activity" — but translating that observation into a structured risk register entry can take far longer. The administrative overhead of compliance documentation has become a tax on professional productivity.

The Anatomy of a Risk Entry

Consider what goes into a properly structured risk register entry for a GDPR-related risk:

• Risk description: A clear statement of the risk, its potential impact, and the affected data subjects or processing activities.
• Risk category: Classification according to the organisation's risk taxonomy (e.g., confidentiality, integrity, availability, compliance, legal).
• Source assessment: Reference to the DPIA or assessment that surfaced the risk, including the specific question or section.
• Regulatory context: Relevant GDPR articles or other regulatory requirements that the risk relates to.
• Inherent risk score: Assessment of likelihood and impact before any controls are applied.
• Current controls: Existing measures that mitigate the risk.
• Residual risk score: Assessment of likelihood and impact with current controls in place.
• Treatment plan: Proposed additional measures, ownership, and timelines.
• Risk owner: The accountable individual for managing the risk.
• Review schedule: When the risk should be reassessed.

Each of these fields requires thought, but not all require the same kind of thought. Identifying that a data minimisation concern exists is an expert judgment call. Formatting that concern into the correct field structure, looking up the relevant GDPR article, and linking back to the source assessment is administrative work. The former requires years of training; the latter requires access to the right information and the patience to fill in forms.

The Professional Burden

In traditional workflows, risk identification and documentation often follows a pattern:

1. A specialist reviews an assessment or processing activity and mentally identifies potential risks.
2. They note those risks — sometimes in email, sometimes in comments, sometimes in a separate document, sometimes just in their head.
3. At some later point, they (or a colleague) must translate those notes into structured risk register entries.
4. The translation requires re-reading the assessment to recall context, looking up regulations, and manually populating each field.
5. Review and approval follows, often with queries back to the original identifier: "What did you mean by this?" "Is this the right article reference?"

This process is slow, error-prone, and frustrating. The specialist who identified the risk is often no longer in the context by the time documentation happens. Information is lost in translation. Entries may be incomplete or inconsistent. And throughout, highly trained professionals are doing work that could be substantially automated.

The Acompli Approach: Structured Expansion from Free Text

Acompli's risk facility is designed to separate the expert judgment part of risk identification from the administrative documentation part — and to automate the latter.

The workflow begins where the specialist's expertise is most valuable: identifying the risk in natural language. A reviewer working through an assessment can flag a concern in simple, contextual terms:

"There is a risk of data minimisation non-compliance. The assessment indicates that full customer address data is being retained when only city-level geographic data is needed for the stated analytics purpose."

This is the expert's observation — the insight that requires professional judgment. From this point forward, Acompli takes over the administrative work.

Contextual Understanding

The AI processes the free-text risk description with full access to the assessment context. It understands:

• What processing activity the assessment describes
• What personal data is involved
• What purposes and legal bases have been documented
• What systems and data flows are in scope
• What the specialist's observation refers to specifically

This contextual awareness is critical. A data minimisation risk in an HR system is different from a data minimisation risk in a customer analytics platform. The AI's understanding of the specific assessment allows it to generate risk register content that is grounded in the actual processing activity, not generic boilerplate.

Automated Field Population

From the free-text input and assessment context, Acompli generates a structured risk register entry with all required fields populated:

• Risk description: Expanded and formalised from the specialist's input, with clear reference to the affected data and processing purpose.
• Risk category: Classified according to the organisation's taxonomy based on the nature of the risk.
• Source linkage: Automatically linked to the specific assessment question or section that relates to the risk.
• Regulatory reference: GDPR Article 5(1)(c) on data minimisation, with explanatory context on what the requirement means.
• Suggested risk scores: Initial estimates based on common patterns for this type of risk, clearly flagged as suggestions requiring human review.
• Suggested treatments: Potential mitigation approaches based on the nature of the risk and common controls.

The specialist receives a pre-filled draft rather than an empty form. Their role shifts from data entry to quality assurance: reviewing the generated content, adjusting scores based on their assessment of the specific situation, approving or modifying treatment suggestions, and assigning ownership.

Review as the Value-Add

This model fundamentally shifts where professional time is spent. Instead of:

• 10% of time identifying risks (the expert judgment)
• 90% of time documenting risks (the administrative work)

The balance becomes:

• 30% of time identifying risks
• 70% of time reviewing and refining drafts

This is not just a productivity gain — it is a quality gain. When specialists spend more time on substantive review and less on form-filling, their expertise is better utilised. They can catch issues in AI-generated drafts, add nuance that the AI missed, and apply professional judgment to risk scoring and treatment selection. The work becomes more interesting and more impactful.

Consistency and Traceability

A secondary benefit of structured expansion from free text is improved consistency across risk register entries. When humans manually populate risk fields, variation inevitably creeps in:

• Different specialists phrase similar risks differently
• Regulatory references may be more or less precise
• Risk category assignments may reflect individual interpretation
• Level of detail varies based on available time and attention

AI-assisted population applies consistent logic to field generation. The same type of risk will be categorised the same way. Regulatory references will follow a standard format. Source linkages will be systematically created. This consistency makes the risk register more usable for analysis, reporting, and audit.

Traceability is also improved. Because the AI automatically links risks to source assessment content, the chain from processing activity → assessment → risk identification → risk register entry → treatment plan is documented and auditable. Regulators or internal auditors can trace any risk back to its origin and understand the rationale for its identification and treatment.

The Human-in-the-Loop Imperative

Automation of administrative tasks does not mean automation of judgment. Acompli's risk facility is explicitly designed with human review as a required step before any AI-generated content enters the official risk register.

Risk scoring, in particular, requires human judgment. The AI can suggest a score based on patterns ("data minimisation risks in analytics contexts are typically moderate likelihood, moderate impact"), but the specialist knows the specifics: how sensitive is this particular data? How mature are the organisation's controls? What is the regulatory environment in this jurisdiction? These factors require human assessment that the AI cannot provide.

Similarly, treatment selection requires organisational knowledge. The AI might suggest "implement data masking at the field level" as a potential mitigation, but only the specialist knows whether that is technically feasible in this system, whether budget has been allocated, and what the timeline constraints are.

The model is clear: AI automates the structure; humans validate the substance. Every AI-generated risk entry is presented as a draft requiring approval. Specialists review, adjust, and sign off. The efficiency gain comes from starting with a complete draft rather than a blank form — not from bypassing expert judgment.

From Cost Centre to Strategic Function

Compliance teams often feel that they are viewed as administrative overhead — a necessary cost rather than a strategic function. Part of this perception comes from the reality that much of compliance work is administrative: filing documents, populating registers, cross-referencing records. When specialist time is consumed by these tasks, it is hard to demonstrate strategic value.

Intelligent automation changes this equation. When administrative burden is reduced, compliance professionals can focus on the work that genuinely requires their expertise:

• Strategic risk assessment and prioritisation
• Advisory support for business initiatives
• Engagement with emerging regulatory requirements
• Development of controls and policies
• Training and awareness programmes

This is the work that positions compliance as a business partner rather than a bottleneck. And it is work that becomes possible when specialists are not spending their days filling in risk register fields.

Making Administration Simple, Making Review Focused

Acompli's design philosophy for risk identification can be summarised in two principles:

1. Make administration simple: Anything that can be derived from context or structured logically should be automated. Free-text input from experts should be expanded into complete, consistent, properly linked register entries.
2. Make review focused: Human attention should be directed to the questions that require judgment. Reviewers should approve or adjust substantive content, not hunt for missing fields or inconsistent formatting.

Together, these principles transform the experience of risk management. Identification becomes a moment of insight expressed in natural language. Documentation happens automatically. Review becomes a focused quality check on a pre-populated draft. And the risk register becomes a reliable, consistent, traceable record of how the organisation identifies and manages compliance risk.

This is what intelligent compliance tooling should do: take the administrative labour out of expert work, so that expertise can be applied where it matters most.

Related Research