# Troy Fine

Troy Fine writes about SOC 2 audits, including audit quality, auditor independence, and how companies use SOC 2 reports. Their posts raise practical questions for audit firms, GRC software companies, and businesses preparing for or relying on SOC 2.

- Profile: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/creators/troy-fine/
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/troyjfine
- Based on 13 dated posts, latest 2026-10-01

## Summary

Troy Fine is most useful for explaining SOC 2 audit quality, independence, and report use through open questions.

- Best for: A GRC software company or campaign needing audit-readiness content or expert review.
- Not for: A scripted product endorsement, platform ranking, or buy-now call to action.
- Check first: Confirm audience composition, availability, terms, and recent results for needed roles, seniority, and organization types.

### Takeaways

- SOC 2 quality criticism may partly reflect longer reports making audit work more visible.
- GRC tool referral fees can create auditor independence threats; rules give no hard percentage.
- Type 1 conclusions can cut Type 2 testing, but the standards question stays open.

## Main ideas

- **SOC 2's quality problem is partly a visibility problem**: Troy Fine asks why ISO 27001 does not attract the same "low-quality audit" narrative as SOC 2, even when the same audit firms issue both. The reasoning centers on what the market can inspect: a SOC 2 report runs 80 to 100 pages, uses non-standardized language, and documents the specific tests performed, giving critics a large surface to examine. An ISO 27001 audit generally ends in a certificate and perhaps a Statement of Applicability, leaving the audit work hidden. Fine does not excuse poor SOC 2 work, saying scrutiny is deserved when firms fall below a minimum quality bar, but treats the criticism as partly structural.
- **GRC tool referral fees can create auditor independence threats**: Troy Fine takes the AICPA Code's fee-dependence logic, where fees from a single client represent a large share of a firm's revenue, and swaps "a single attest client" for "a single GRC tool." The argument is that a large share of a CPA firm's SOC 2 revenue from one tool's referrals can create two threats: self-interest, because the firm focuses on keeping the revenue, and undue influence, because the tool gains leverage over the auditor's judgment. The post notes the AICPA Code does not explicitly address modern GRC tool referrals or define what counts as a large percentage, leaving firms to self-assess safeguards. If safeguards cannot reduce the threats, the firm is expected to stop auditing referred clients.
- **Type 1 conclusions can cut Type 2 testing, but the standards question stays open**: Troy Fine walks through a sequence in which the same CPA firm performs a SOC 2 Type 1 audit as of September 30, 2026, then a Type 2 audit for July 1 through December 31, 2026. For static controls such as MFA, auditors reuse Type 1 conclusions and add a management inquiry for the remaining period; they test sample-based controls across the full Type 2 period. The stated benefit is lower Type 2 cost and a faster six-month report for the client. Fine frames the method as a question, asking whether it is common and whether audit standards explicitly prohibit it.
- **SOC 2 reports may work as a procurement liability shield**: Troy Fine challenges the assumption that GRC or Security teams drive requests for prospective vendors' SOC 2 reports. The post suggests that at larger companies, Procurement, Legal, or Risk teams increasingly make those requests. If so, Fine argues, SOC 2 is being used less as a vendor security assessment and more as a liability shield, making it a binary checklist item needed to clear procurement. Knowing which teams originate the request would help explain the root cause of SOC 2 quality challenges.
- **Unresolved standards questions should become group deliberation**: Across the posts, Troy Fine tends to open with a direct question, explain the relevant standard, market dynamic, or audit scenario, and invite readers to discuss, compare answers, or propose a consensus view. The method is explanatory and debate-oriented rather than promotional. Fine surfaces questions the guidance does not settle, such as a referral-fee threshold or whether a testing shortcut is permitted, and invites practitioners to debate them in public.

## Work to read

- [Who actually asks vendors for a SOC 2 report?](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troyjfine_at-your-company-which-teams-actually-require-activity-7503806758272892928-qvXW)
- [Why ISO 27001 escapes the 'low-quality audit' narrative that SOC 2 faces](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troyjfine_why-doesnt-iso-27001-suffer-from-the-same-activity-7496553015508652035-FaEo)
- [Referral fees from a GRC tool: when does auditor independence break?](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troyjfine_do-fees-from-referrals-from-a-single-grc-activity-7501251798658289664-q_Rj)
- [Can a Type 1 audit cut the cost of a later Type 2 report?](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troyjfine_is-the-approach-outlined-below-common-in-activity-7498007177119289344-1Gtz)
- [Fireside chat: Harnessing the Power of SOC 2](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/troyjfine_im-really-looking-forward-to-this-one-activity-7500908244752797697-X4nw)

## Brand relationships

- **The GRC Meet-up** (mention)

## Partnerships

Troy Fine’s posts focus on SOC 2 audit quality, auditor independence, examination methods and how companies use SOC 2 reports. The partnership example is a community fireside chat for GRC professionals, not a documented sponsorship offering. No sponsorship packages, rates or inquiry route are listed; brands interested in working together should propose terms directly.

## Alternatives

- Jacob Riff: Choose Riff for a campaign aimed at founders who need a practical walkthrough of SOC 2 preparation. The two posts lay out the sequence a small team actually goes through: roughly twenty policy documents that someone has to read and adapt, around 100 to 150 controls each proven with documentation, a vendor risk assessment covering every tool that touches customer data, and usually a penetration test. They explain the difference between a Type I that looks at a single day and a Type II with a three-to-six-month observation period, and note that an engagement letter from an auditor can keep a blocked deal moving before the attestation exists. One post also answers the objection that a compliance platform is a waste of money by separating what a platform adds from what it does not—a useful approach if the brand's own content has to make that same argument honestly.
- Adam Holmgren: Choose Holmgren for a customer-side certification story rather than an audit-method story. The two posts describe a two-person bootstrapped company going through SOC 2 Type I: writing policy documents, finding an auditor on a small budget, encountering the Delve fabrication scandal, and concluding that who certifies you now matters more than the certificate itself. They name the chosen firm, describe the two months spent deciding to sign, credit a co-founder for the work, and close with the plan for Type II. The second post adds current trading context—growth from 100k to 500k to 1.3M ARR, 750 paying customers, a first hire, channel expansion—making it a fit for a campaign tying the compliance journey to a live go-to-market story.
- Tom Gell: Choose Gell for a campaign making a framework argument with a third-party risk angle. One post contrasts a risk-based ISO 27001, where the Statement of Applicability is a set of decisions you have to defend, with a SOC 2 that the market treats as a checklist of criteria you satisfy with proof, and explains why compliance platforms built for lists struggle with ISO. The other works through three large breaches caused by suppliers—Jaguar Land Rover through credentials held at an electronics partner, Marks & Spencer through an outsourced IT helpdesk, the NHS through a private pathology provider—to argue that vendor due diligence exists because the weakest link is someone you let in. This suits a positioning or opinion piece about how audit frameworks shape security behaviour.

---
AI-assisted summary of public posts. Audience demographics are not available. Engagement appears only where we checked recent posts. Method: https://b2binfluencer.marketing/methodology/