CISA Practice Question: Information Systems Acquisition, Development, and Implementation
An IS auditor is reviewing an agile software development project. Which of the following would be the BEST evidence that adequate controls are in place for user acceptance?
⚠ Common exam trap
CISA often tests the confusion between the sprint review (product acceptance with stakeholders) and the sprint retrospective (internal process improvement), causing candidates to select the retrospective as evidence of user acceptance.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
Each sprint concludes with a sprint review attended by stakeholders
In agile development, the sprint review is the ceremony where the team demonstrates the completed increment to stakeholders, who provide feedback and formally accept or reject the work. This stakeholder participation at the end of each sprint is the strongest evidence that user acceptance controls are functioning, because acceptance is continuous rather than deferred to a single end-of-project event. It directly addresses the risk that delivered functionality diverges from business needs.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
The product backlog is managed by the product owner
Why it's wrong here
Backlog management by the product owner evidences requirement prioritisation, not user acceptance testing or sign-off. It tempts because the product owner does own acceptance criteria, but the auditor needs records of users validating the delivered increment against those criteria.
- ✗
Daily standup meetings are held to track progress
Why it's wrong here
Standups track development progress and impediments, not user validation of increments, so they provide no acceptance evidence. They are tempting because they are a core agile practice demonstrating active project oversight, and would be the correct evidence when auditing progress monitoring or impediment management controls.
- ✗
Retrospectives are conducted after each sprint
Why it's wrong here
Retrospectives review team process, not whether users validated the delivered increments, so they evidence no acceptance control. They are tempting because they are a genuine agile ceremony that examines the sprint, and would be relevant evidence when auditing team improvement or process maturity rather than user acceptance.
- ✓
Each sprint concludes with a sprint review attended by stakeholders
Why this is correct
Sprint reviews provide evidence that stakeholders inspect the increment each sprint, satisfying the need for continuous user acceptance in agile delivery. Unlike a single end-of-project sign-off, this recurring stakeholder validation demonstrates acceptance controls operate throughout development, directly addressing the stem's requirement for adequate user acceptance evidence.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CISA question is part of Courseiva's 934-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written and reviewed by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
Last reviewed September 2026 · checked against the official ISACA exam blueprint
This CISA practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CISA exam.