Can the four official meetings of Scrum fulfill stringent documentation requirements?

One of my goals is to make sure Agile eventually enjoys office-wide adoption. That starts within my own circle of influence. One of these impediments is the "lack of documentation" compared to waterfall. As scrum master, I am instructing my developers to be thinking of user stories as they write their technical overview. More importantly, I am asking the system administrators (product owners by proxy) to consider them in the functional overview that they're writing. If the functional overview can be written in the form of user stories, how much easier then is it to translate the work into an agile framework. The other benefit is that managment begins to be exposed to agile on a broader level.

There are four official meetings of Scrum: The planning meeting, daily scrum, review, and retrospective. Can the auditors be convinced that faithfully committing to these meetings fulfills at least a part of the documentation requirements within the organization? For now, I'm not so sure that the meetings themselves can serve as "documentation." This post will be completed once I finish my research of this point.