Firms know which engagements went well in the way everyone knows things: by feel, by who complained, by what came back. The evidence is all there in the files, and nobody has time to read across them.
Quality as something measured, not sensed
The Audit Quality Index reads across the firm's engagements and reports on the things that distinguish a well-run file from a hurried one: whether the work was signed off and by whom, whether review notes were raised and cleared, whether the papers that should exist do, whether findings were resolved or merely closed.
Across the firm, not one file at a time
The value is in the comparison. One engagement tells a partner about that engagement; the same measures across every engagement tell a partner where the practice is thin — a team carrying too much, a client where the file is consistently late, a stage of the work that is skipped whenever things get busy.
Built from what people actually did
Nothing here is a self-assessment or a questionnaire. The measures come from the record of the work itself: the sign-offs, the review notes, the papers, the findings. A file does not score well because someone said it was fine.
For the conversation a partner has to have
Review is easier when the evidence precedes the opinion. A pattern across ten engagements is a different conversation from an impression about one, and far easier to act on without it becoming personal.
It changes as the work changes
Because it reads the live record, it moves as the engagements move. At any point in the season it reflects where the firm actually is, rather than where it was when somebody last compiled a summary.
Visible to the people who can act
Partners see the practice; a manager sees what they are responsible for. The measure is only useful if it reaches the person who can do something about it.
Questions CAs ask
What does the Audit Quality Index measure?
It reads across engagements and reports on sign-offs, review notes raised and cleared, whether expected working papers exist, and whether findings were resolved — the things that separate a well-run file from a hurried one.
Is it a self-assessment or a questionnaire?
Neither. Every measure is taken from the record of the work itself, so a file cannot score well because someone reported that it was fine.
Is it per engagement or across the firm?
Across the firm, which is where the value is. Comparable measures over every engagement show where a practice is consistently thin rather than describing one file.
Who can see it?
Partners see the practice as a whole and a manager sees the engagements they are responsible for, so the measure reaches the person able to act on it.
Related modules
- Statutory Audit — Statutory audit software built around the Standards on Auditing — materiality, SA 530 sampling, SA 510 opening balances and confirmations, documented as the work is done.
- Consolidated Review — Every module's findings in a single review worklist — what Audcrix marked and what the team marked, kept apart, each with its evidence and its severity.
- Review Playbooks — Set out what a review consists of — the checks, the stages, the reviewer — per kind of engagement, recorded against the work so a skipped step stays visible.