The article was good and goes into more detail than I expected it would about the particular perverse incentives in this case. But in general, isn't this a problem with all forms of commercial auditing?

Without a truly adversarial process (like, say, the US IRS), where there's a party that is actively incentivized to _find_ problems rather than to _not get caught overlooking_ problems, it is never going to drive quality beyond the bare minimum plausible deniability level.