Access reviews that end in evidence, not in a spreadsheet.

Access review is one of the most commonly required controls across frameworks and one of the most commonly weak in practice. The mechanics are familiar: export the entitlements, distribute the lists, collect approvals, chase the stragglers, file the result. It looks like a control operating. What it often produces is a spreadsheet with no link to the control it satisfies, no record of what a reviewer was actually shown, and no confirmation that recommended revocations were carried out.

Reviewers deserve some sympathy here. Handed a list of group names and application roles with no description of what each one permits, approving everything is the rational response to an impossible request. And when a review recommends removing access, the removal happens in another system on another team's schedule, so the loop between recommendation and revocation stays open — sometimes indefinitely.

Talarity runs the review where the evidence needs to live. Campaigns run inside the program, reviewers see context on what they're approving, and the outcome attaches to the access control it satisfies with the reviewer, the decision, and the timestamp on the record. Joiner-mover-leaver events produce their own record of what was granted and revoked, so accumulation from role changes is visible rather than discovered during an audit.