Which observation during a test comparing job run logs to computer job schedules would be of GREATEST concern to an IS auditor?

The observation of computer operators overriding some jobs would raise significant concern for an IS auditor due to the potential for unauthorized changes, which could compromise the integrity of the job scheduling process. This practice may indicate a lack of controls or adherence to procedures that are essential for maintaining a controlled and predictable operating environment.

When jobs are overridden by operators, it opens the door to errors or intentional malfeasance. This behavior could bypass important checks and balances established to ensure that jobs are executed as intended. Furthermore, it may lead to inconsistent processing results, audit trails that are unreliable, and a failure to comply with regulatory requirements or organizational policies.

To maintain accountability and reliability in processing, job schedules should be followed as planned, with overrides limited to exceptional circumstances and properly documented and approved. In contrast, while emergency changes and missed completion times might be concerning, they do not directly involve bypassing established controls, which is why the overriding of jobs takes precedence in terms of risk and impact. Only running scheduled jobs is an indication of compliance with the planned job schedule, thus presenting less concern to the auditor.