A prepared working record
A period-specific evidence index and exception list, with source links and a draft request for the missing statement.
Accounting firms / A practical workflow
Gather the close evidence, by client and period
The engagement team needs to know what is ready to reconcile and which missing file is holding up the review.
From input to handoffThe source stays
The source stays
with the work.
One possible workflow, with the preparation and review responsibilities made clear.
- 01 / The starting point
Client-approved ledger and bank exports, the period checklist, and the engagement’s document register. Keep client identifiers with every file.
- 02 / The right context
Compare expected files, dates, and control totals; identify a revised export and separate it from the version already reviewed. Group missing evidence into specific questions rather than a generic reminder.
- 03 / Prepared for review
A period-specific evidence index and exception list, with source links and a draft request for the missing statement.
- 04 / A person decides
The engagement senior checks the pack and approves any client request. The responsible accountant decides adjustments and close sign-off.
Tangible work
What the next person receives.
A clear review route
The engagement senior checks the pack and approves any client request. The responsible accountant decides adjustments and close sign-off.
An agreed scope
No inferred journal entries or audit conclusions. A wrong-client file stops preparation; it must not become context for another engagement.
Agree what good looks likeA useful result
A useful result
can be checked.
The acceptance decision
When a ledger export is replaced, the pack identifies checks made against the previous file and checks that need repeating.
Include the difficult case
Try a client replacing a ledger export after the first review. The pack should mark which checks used the previous file and which need to be repeated before sign-off.
Keep the scope clear
No inferred journal entries or audit conclusions. A wrong-client file stops preparation; it must not become context for another engagement.
How we validate the work ↗A first conversationBring the job.
Bring the job.
We’ll shape the brief.
Start with a general outline of this workflow and the team that owns it.
Plan this workflow ↗Three useful questions
Which files and checks define a complete pack for one client and period?
How does your team identify revised exports and keep client records separate?
Who checks the evidence pack and approves requests for missing information?
A few useful answers
Before we begin.
What does the reviewer receive?
An evidence index, exception list, and draft request for missing files.
Who reviews the result before anything changes?
Engagement senior.
What stays outside this scope?
No inferred journal entries or audit conclusions. A wrong-client file stops preparation; it must not become context for another engagement.
Which difficult case do we test first?
Try a client replacing a ledger export after the first review. The pack should mark which checks used the previous file and which need to be repeated before sign-off.
How do we know it works?
When a ledger export is replaced, the pack identifies checks made against the previous file and checks that need repeating. Agree this acceptance check before work starts.