By the end of an engagement the findings are everywhere: a note in one module, an exception in another, something a senior wrote down in week two. Reviewing the engagement means collecting them, and collecting them is most of the work.
Two worklists, side by side
What Audcrix marked across the engagement, and what the people on it marked. Keeping them apart matters: one is the product of the checks, the other is professional judgement, and a reviewer needs to know which is which before deciding what to do about either.
Everything, in one list
Every module's findings arrive in a single worklist, each carrying where it came from and how serious it is. An exception and a note to look at are not the same thing and do not read the same way, so the list can be worked down rather than read through.
Signed figures, kept signed
A flagged amount can be negative — a reversal, a credit-side exception — and it is printed as negative. A reversal presented as a positive is the kind of error that survives review precisely because it looks ordinary.
Nothing collapses into a total
The worklist is a list of things to decide, not a score. Each item stays separate, with its evidence attached, because an aggregate tells a reviewer that there is something to look at without telling them where.
Built once, for a whole engagement
A large engagement's review is assembled from several analyses at once, and it is prepared in the background rather than made to finish inside a browser request. The practical effect is that it is available for a big client, which is exactly where it is most needed.
Where the engagement gets closed
The review worklist is where an engagement is actually concluded: what was found, what was done about it, what was accepted and by whom. That record is the file, and it is the thing anyone looking back will read.
Questions CAs ask
What does the consolidated review bring together?
Every module's findings in one worklist, each stating the module it came from and how serious it is, so a reviewer can work down a list instead of collecting findings from each screen.
Why are there two worklists?
One holds what the checks marked, the other what the people on the engagement marked. A reviewer needs to know which is which, because the two call for different decisions.
Does it produce a single score?
No. Items stay separate with their evidence attached. An aggregate would say there is something to look at without saying where, which is the opposite of useful at review stage.
How are negative amounts shown?
With their sign. A reversal or a credit-side exception is printed as negative, because such an item presented as a positive looks ordinary and survives review.
Further reading
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.
- Audit Quality Index — Measure engagement quality across the whole practice from the record of the work — sign-offs, review notes, papers and findings, not a self-assessment.
- 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.