The correct answer is false. While automated systems serve as powerful tools for compliance monitoring, offering continuous oversight and alerting, they cannot completely replace the need for manual verification processes. There are aspects of compliance that require human judgment and interpretation, such as understanding nuanced legal definitions, context-specific evaluations, and managing complex relationships with stakeholders. Furthermore, automated systems may have limitations, require tuning, and be subject to errors and false positives which necessitate manual review to validate and investigate alerts. Thus, a combination of both automated and manual verification processes is essential to ensure a comprehensive approach to maintaining compliance.