Your workspace
The auditor role: looking without touching
For whoever has to review and should not be able to change anything, not even by accident.
Some people come in to check, not to work: an external auditor, your accountants, a quality manager from your client, a partner who wants to see how things are going. Giving them the same role as an operator is convenient on day one and irritating for the rest of the year.
Why a read-only role is worth it
| With an editing role | With an auditor role |
|---|---|
| They can change something by accident | They cannot, and that reassures both sides |
| Their actions blend in with the team's | What they do stands out in the log |
| You have to trust they will not touch | No trust needed: they cannot |
| If they do touch something, it is awkward to explain | Their review does not alter what is reviewed |
Important
The fourth row is what really matters in an audit. If the reviewer can modify, any later difference invites the awkward question of whether they caused it. A role that cannot write removes that doubt permanently, and protects the auditor as much as you.
What someone with that role can do
That is exactly what they need to do their job. If at some point they must contribute something — a report, minutes — better they send it and you upload it: the file keeps a single owner.
Watch out
The nuance that sometimes surprises: **read-only is not invisible**. What they consult is recorded in the activity log like any other action, with their name and the time. That is desirable — it lets you answer years later who saw what — but tell whoever comes in, especially an outsider. It is not surveillance: it is the same traceability required of everything else.
When NOT to use it
- 1
If that person will supply documentation
Then they are not a reviewer: they are a participant, and there are better routes.
- 2
If they only need to see one document
No access needed: send it by their link.
- 3
And if it is someone on your team complaining about the role
They probably need a different one, not an upgrade of this one.
Worth knowing
Like any outside access, this one is withdrawn when the engagement ends, not when someone remembers. An auditor from two years ago who can still log in is the most awkward finding in your own permissions review.
›Does it take a seat?
Yes, it counts as a user while active; hence withdrawing it at the end.
›Can they export?
It depends what you enable. If they will export, better known beforehand than discovered after.
›What if they need something I did not grant?
Let them ask: widening takes a minute and there is a record of what was widened and when.
A real case
The situation
A company gives its external auditor an editing role so nothing is missing.
What you do
- Switches to the read-only role and explains their access is logged
- Withdraws access when the report closes
What you get
The audit runs with nobody able to question whether the reviewer altered what was reviewed.
The situation
An auditor asks for access and is given an editing role.
What you do
- Grants read-only access
What you get
They look without being able to touch.
The situation
There is concern the auditor might change something unintentionally.
What you do
- Uses the role that cannot write
What you get
The risk disappears.
The situation
The auditor finishes and their access stays active.
What you do
- Revokes access on completion
What you get
Access reflects who is collaborating today.
The situation
There is no record of what they consulted.
What you do
- Checks the access log
What you get
You know what was shown to them.
The situation
The auditor only needs to see one part.
What you do
- Limits the scope to what is relevant
What you get
They see what was asked for and nothing more.
This article answers
- read-only access
- auditor role on the platform
- let someone review without editing
- access for an external auditor