Replies

The results of a selective audit, either random or directed, should show several areas of concern.
If each selected area indicates a concern, than a wide-ranging (full universe) audit shall be done.
If the wide-ranging audit returns several duplicate concerns across the range, then a file-by-file canvass must be done.

These are the steps of an audit scheme, inherent in business.
They are standards followed by accountants, compliance officers and consultants throughout the USA.

What that means for the elections is that the 3rd-party auditing board and the client/certifier (election officials) arrive at an agreed selection of precincts to audit.
Those performing the audit must be a third party with credentials of integrity.
Those that show possible fraud may or may not indicate a look at all the precincts (”recanvas”) for similar fraud indicators.
If there are similar fraud indicators in a majority of precincts then a file-by-file (recount) is needed.

Notes: 1) Each step must be agreed to by both political parties. There is no effort to determine party benefit in the audits, simply the existence of any fraud.
2) It is recommended in contentious situations that a new group of auditors be utilized for each successive step.
3) Each step must reveal a need for the next step. At any point the client declines to follow through with a proper audit step, the audit cannot be certified by the auditing group.

There is also an unfortunate side of this. At present, the only “officially certified” auditors I can find through open-source research are trained/certified by CISA.
Recent events have thrown a partisan shade on the CISA and accordingly, would seem to disallow these auditors from consideration.
I cannot find any individual state certified auditing group.
States may need to default to accountants or other auditing contractors who may have non-partisan bona fides.
YMMV