According to a report by the Comptroller General's Office (SIGEN, for its acronym in Spanish), the Superintendence of the AFJP did not adequately control the claims made by members of the Administrators of pensions and private pensions. The "SAFJP did not have the proper information about the presentations of the beneficiaries of the system, and depends solely on the information submitted" periodically by the companies.

SIGEN’s report was done in 2006 and, at that time, it also stressed that the Control Management Entities SAFJP lacked proper planning of their tasks, making it impossible to control the performance of their officials. Also, the projects had not determined the dependence to meet its targets, and the allocation of human and material resources was "inadequate."

Furthermore, the methodology used to measure the Superintendence risk levels of the administrators was also incorrect, according to SIGEN. The report argues that the variables were not comparable between periods, i.e. changed from year to year, and exemplifies: "The outcome of the latest global ratings of the SAFJP shows that the risks of system capitalization remained unchanged between December 2002 and June 2004. That fact does not reflect the true situation of the system."  In short, the Superintendence modified the impact of measuring variables "without foundation" and thus validated tests Administrators risk.

The Audit acknowledged in its report that, in this last remark, the SAFJP "is doomed to develop a (new) methodology, effected important changes regarding the evaluation matrix". But the Superintendence also responded by previous observations using almost always the same formula: it said that when an irregularity was found "it remitted corrective notes to the administrators who did not comply" with current regulations and, in general, "what was said by the SIGEN was shared ", or that it was something" totally and absolutely wrong.”

Despite the response of the SAFJP, the Trustee made another report in July 2007 in which it repeated many of the weaknesses observed a year earlier, as they were recorded in the Control Management Entities (See: The Superintendence of AFJP not You know how ...).

Outside, in the discharge of the SAFJP the 2006 report contained answers, instead of explaining the objections directly oppose those of the Trustee, as if both bodies talk about different things. For example, when the SIGEN says "Management (Control Entities) it does not prepare a report on the evaluation of (its) management", the body that oversees the administrators replied that "there are internal control mechanisms ranging successive recording milestones in implementing the control plan. If not so, it would be impossible regarding the state of affairs in the newspaper report management." Not only that, the Superintendent also says that the balance sheet prepared by Management "is an input to the report of the General Management of the SAFJP". Despite the response, the SIGEN also repeated this remark in the 2007 work.