Yesterday I had a back-and-forth with a boss over "login", "log in", "log in to" and "log into". That might seem silly but little things really do matter. (fyi, login = noun. Log in = verb. We never settled on 'into' or 'in to'.)
log into -> write to a specific log
log in to -> access a certain host
Meaning, she would suggest saying: "Write a log to" and "User logs in to"; which are far more clear in their intent. :)
I think it's amazing we can even understand each other sometimes; English is quite a terrible language.
With a usage note that some people dislike it:
> And yet, this gluing together of terms like login, logon, backup, and setup as verbs is common, especially in writing about computers. Not for everyone, however. Some well-known software companies, for example, carefully maintain the distinction in their programs and documentation. But habits are difficult to change. Those who react to the one-word verb as an error will probably have to get used to it, and those who use the one-word verb will have to recognize that others will see it and wince.
Dutch has this much more systematically than English, where when this happens you can form the infinitive for the verb by prepending the verb with the preposition. So "someone who breaks in" would be an "in-breaker" and the infinitive form is "to in-break". (In modern English one would have to say a "breaker-inner" to convey the idea of one who breaks in.) Similarly the Dutch might look at the verb "with-hold" and assume that you would say "the company held with that information, not disclosing it" rather than "the company withheld that information."
Anyway, since the verb is "in-log" you "log in", as opposed to the conventional meanings for the verb "logging" (writing down something or clearing trees) where you might "log into" (respectively writing down into, or clearing trees from).
hey, your preposition is auditing process is broken