Skip to main content
Version: Angophra

Access Review Reports

Menu path: Observe → Deep Dive → Access Reviews
URL: /en/insights/dashboard/access

Purpose​

The Access Review Reports page tracks the outcomes and progress of access review campaigns run within Apporetum. Access reviews (sometimes called access certifications or recertification campaigns) are structured processes where managers or application owners confirm whether their team members should continue to have access to specific applications or resources.

This page shows the health of your access review programme - are reviews being completed, what actions are reviewers taking, and are campaigns being finalised? It is the governance reporting layer for your access review programme, showing both the operational status of in-flight reviews and the historical outcomes of completed ones.

Filters​

The page has extensive filtering capabilities:

  • Empty / Ready to Finalise toggles - show only empty campaigns or those ready for finalisation
  • Account Type, Action, App, App Role - filter by the attributes of the access items being reviewed
  • Campaign Key - filter by a specific review campaign
  • Data Source - filter by directory
  • Review Due Date, Reviewed Account, Status - filter by review metadata

Charts and Reports​

Access Reviews by Actions​

Chart type: add example --> Bar chart
What it shows: A breakdown of access review item outcomes by the action taken by reviewers - typically: Approve (keep access), Revoke (remove access), No Decision (not yet acted on).

Why it matters: This chart tells you whether your access review campaigns are producing meaningful decisions. A healthy access review programme should have a high proportion of "Approve" or "Revoke" decisions and a low proportion of "No Decision" items. A large "No Decision" segment means reviewers are not completing their tasks, which defeats the purpose of the review.

What to look for: If "Revoke" decisions are suspiciously low (near zero), this may indicate "rubber stamp" reviewing where reviewers are approving everything without genuine scrutiny. Typically, 5-20% revocation rates are expected in a well-managed environment. A zero revocation rate should prompt a review of whether the access review process is working as intended.

Review Activity​

Chart type: add example --> Time-series line chart
What it shows: The count of access review memberships reviewed over time, showing reviewer activity levels.

Why it matters: This chart shows whether review activity is evenly distributed over the review period or whether reviewers are leaving everything to the last minute ("deadline rush"). A healthy pattern shows consistent activity throughout the campaign period. A large spike at the end suggests deadline-driven completion, which often correlates with lower quality decision-making.

Reviewer Results​

Chart type: add example --> Bar chart
What it shows: The count of access items reviewed by each individual reviewer (e.g., by manager or application owner).

Why it matters: This highlights reviewer engagement. Some reviewers may have completed all their items while others have done nothing. This is important for chasing up non-responding reviewers and for evaluating whether certain individuals are reliable reviewers for future campaigns.

What to look for: Any reviewer with zero completed items as a campaign approaches its due date should be escalated to. Consistently poor reviewing patterns from certain individuals may warrant assigning backup reviewers or changing the review process for their scope.

Access Review Status​

Chart type: add example --> Donut chart
What it shows: The total access review items (1,759 in the example) broken down by Finalised vs In Progress.

Why it matters: This is the overall completion health metric for your review campaigns. A campaign that is past its due date but still mostly "In Progress" is a governance failure - the access decisions have not been captured and the review cannot be closed.

Due Access Reviews by State​

Chart type: add example --> Summary/KPI
What it shows: Access reviews that are past their due date (2,259 in the example), broken down by their current state.

Why it matters: Overdue access reviews represent a compliance risk. If your organisation has a policy or regulatory requirement to complete access reviews within a specific timeframe, overdue reviews are a potential audit finding. They also mean that access decisions are still pending - people may be retaining access that should have been revoked.

What to do: Investigate the overdue reviews. Are they overdue because reviewers have not acted? Because the review was set up with incorrect parameters? Because the target population changed significantly? Take steps to close out or escalate overdue campaigns.

Action Results by App Role​

Chart type: add example --> Bar chart
What it shows: The access review outcomes (Approve, Revoke, No Decision) broken down by the specific application role being reviewed.

Why it matters: This chart helps identify which application roles are generating the most revocation decisions (potentially indicating over-provisioning of those roles) and which are never being challenged (potentially indicating rubber-stamp reviewing). High revocation rates for a specific role may warrant investigating how that role was originally assigned.

The Access Reviews Table​

The table at the bottom of the page lists all access review campaigns with columns including:

  • Review Target - What is being reviewed (application access, account memberships, etc.)
  • Start Date - When the campaign began
  • Status - Current status (In Progress, Finalised, etc.)
  • Progress — Percentage or count of items completed
  • Alerts — Any warnings associated with the campaign

Use this table to get a quick status update on all campaigns, identify overdue or stalled reviews, and drill into specific campaigns for detailed analysis.