---
id: KB-ET-016
url: https://app.codecontract.io/help/your-workspace/the-auditor-role-looking-without-touching
idioma: en
categoria: espacio-de-trabajo
subcategoria: usuarios
audiencia: administrador
nivel: intermedio
actualizado: 2026-08-13
tambienEn: [es]
relacionados: [KB-ET-005, KB-AD-011, KB-ET-017]
citadoPor: [KB-ET-021]
---

# The auditor role: looking without touching

_For whoever has to review and should not be able to change anything, not even by accident._

**Responde a:** read-only access · auditor role on the platform · let someone review without editing · access for an external auditor

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

**En corto**

- See the files and documents you give them access to.
- Consult history and check dates.
- And download what they need, if you allowed it.

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.

> [!WARNING]
> 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.

> [!NOTE]
> 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.

## Ejemplos

**A company gives its external auditor an editing role so nothing is missing.**

- Switches to the read-only role and explains their access is logged
- Withdraws access when the report closes

→ The audit runs with nobody able to question whether the reviewer altered what was reviewed.

**An auditor asks for access and is given an editing role.**

- Grants read-only access

→ They look without being able to touch.

**There is concern the auditor might change something unintentionally.**

- Uses the role that cannot write

→ The risk disappears.

**The auditor finishes and their access stays active.**

- Revokes access on completion

→ Access reflects who is collaborating today.

**There is no record of what they consulted.**

- Checks the access log

→ You know what was shown to them.

**The auditor only needs to see one part.**

- Limits the scope to what is relevant

→ They see what was asked for and nothing more.