# Lead - Security Controls Assurance - SOX at Anthropic

> Define SOX control requirements for financial systems and validate that engineering's implementations meet them before audit.

- Company: Anthropic (anthropic.com)
- Location: San Francisco, CA | Seattle, WA | New York City, NY | Washington, DC
- Places: San Francisco, Seattle, New York
- Posted: 2026-09-08
- Level: Lead
- Team: Security Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC), Technical Controls Assurance
- Apply: https://job-boards.greenhouse.io/anthropic/jobs/5415864008
- Page: https://ye.saranatour.dev/jobs/lead-security-controls-assurance-sox-anthropic-kn707gh8m3s7rn4wz7g7fbpj398hc9zc

## The posting

Lead - Security Controls Assurance - SOX
Anthropic · San Francisco, CA | Seattle, WA | New York City, NY | Washington, DC

## **About Anthropic**

Anthropic’s mission is to create reliable, interpretable, and steerable AI systems. We want AI to be safe and beneficial for our users and for society as a whole. Our team is a quickly growing group of committed researchers, engineers, policy experts, and business leaders working together to build beneficial AI systems.

## **About the role**

Anthropic's Security Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) team is the connective tissue that holds the company accountable to its security and control commitments. We translate regulatory, customer, and voluntary obligations into controls that teams act on, and give leadership a bird's-eye view of how well we're meeting them. We're building toward continuous assurance, to challenge and evidence the performance of controls continuously rather than through periodic audits.

As Anthropic scales to meet public-company standards, the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) control environment over our technology stack is one of the most consequential things this team owns. As part of Security GRC's technical controls assurance function, you will be the voice on what the IT general controls must achieve to support SOX 404 compliance. In partnership with Internal Audit, you will define control requirements and acceptance criteria for the in-scope engineering systems and infrastructure that underpin financial reporting. You will pair with engineering as they design and implement against those requirements, and validate that what ships actually meets the bar before Internal Audit and our external auditors test it. You are the product owner for control design methodology and continuous control monitoring, initially around ITGCs, but extending into other areas of security and compliance to drive visibility where and when we need it.

## **Key responsibilities**

- Define control requirements and acceptance criteria across the core ITGC domains of logical access, change management, computer operations, and program development for SOX in-scope systems, including home-built platforms where the control has to be designed into the system rather than bolted on.
- Set the bar for in-scope systems from day one. As financially significant systems are built, migrated, or replaced, define what the system must provide (auditability, segregation of duties, change control, immutable logging, evidence retention) before go-live, so controls are not retrofitted after the fact.
- Pressure-test changes for SOX impact during design. Review major infrastructure, system, and agent framework changes for control impact while decisions are still cheap, and maintain a clear view of which changes alter the SOX scope, key control population, or evidence requirements.
- Own second-line control monitoring and evidence readiness. Stand up continuous controls monitoring and automated evidence collection for ITGCs (control testing, walkthrough preparation, population and completeness validation, and mapping to the common controls framework). Materially raise automated evidence coverage and cut audit prep time.
- Drive control deficiency remediation with cross functional partners. Track and root-cause ITGC deficiencies surfaced by monitoring, Internal Audit, or external audit; partner with engineering owners on remediation design; and assess whether remediation actually closes the gap before re-testing.
- Assess s