common peer review findings
common peer review findings
While every firm is unique, peer reviews frequently identify similar themes. Understanding these common findings helps firms strengthen documentation, improve engagement quality, and reduce preventable issues before the review.
Frequent System Review Findings (Audit Practices)
Risk assessment not clearly linked to audit procedures. Reviewers often see risks identified in planning, but little connection between those risks and the nature, timing, and extent of testing.
Documentation gaps. Missing or incomplete workpapers—such as unclear planning, substantive procedures without clear expectations, or insufficient evidence supporting conclusions—are among the most common issues.
Financial statement disclosure deficiencies. Required disclosures, particularly in areas like revenue recognition or leases, may be incomplete or not clearly supported by the workpapers.
Monitoring and remediation not fully documented. Firms may perform monitoring activities but lack written evidence of inspections, follow‑up, root‑cause analysis, or completed corrective actions.
Sampling and testing issues. Engagement files may not clearly show the rationale for sample sizes, selection methods, or the link to assessed risks.
Independence and ethical requirement documentation. Annual confirmations or threat‑and‑safeguard evaluations may be missing or incomplete.
Frequent Engagement Review Findings (SSARS Practices)
Reports not aligned with current SSARS requirements. Wording in review or compilation reports may not match required language or may not fit the facts of the engagement.
Engagement letters and required communications. Letters may be missing, outdated, or incomplete, or may not include all required SSARS elements.
Documentation of procedures and conclusions. Files may not clearly show the analytical procedures performed in a review or the basis for conclusions reached.
Financial statement presentation and disclosures. Missing or inconsistent disclosures or presentation issues are common across SSARS engagements.
What Improves Outcomes (Practical Focus Areas)
Strengthen the link between risks and procedures. Make the connection explicit in planning and in substantive work; ensure documentation clearly supports decisions.
Enhance documentation quality. Workpapers should clearly show planning, procedures performed, results, conclusions, and supervisory review.
Refresh SSARS templates and reports. Ensure your reports, engagement letters, and checklists reflect current standards and the specific circumstances of the engagement.
Document monitoring and remediation. Maintain written evidence of inspections, findings, root‑cause analysis, and corrective actions.
Confirm independence and ethics annually. Retain confirmations and relevant evaluations for all personnel subject to independence requirements.
Keep the firm’s library and methodology current. Make sure staff are using up‑to‑date tools, checklists, and professional literature, and document training or CPE completed in new or complex areas.
Why Addressing Findings Matters
Peer review is designed to be educational and constructive. Addressing findings strengthens engagement quality, reduces risk, enhances consistency, and supports a smoother review in future cycles. It also helps firms demonstrate a functioning system of quality management and reinforces the profession’s commitment to high‑quality work.
Explore more Peer Review resources
AICPA Peer Review (main) • What Is an System Review? • What Is an Engagement Review? • How to Prepare for an AICPA Peer Review