What an engagement quality reviewer examines

What an engagement quality reviewer looks at and writes down under ISQM 2, when the review counts as complete, and how to prepare the reviewer's pack.

By Achekam · 11 October 2026 · 5 min read · For Accountants & audit firms in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya

A partner asked to act as engagement quality reviewer for the first time usually asks the same thing: how much of the file am I meant to read? Read too little and the review is a signature. Read everything and the reviewer has re-performed the audit, which is neither the job nor a good use of a senior person's week.

ISQM 2 answers the question by pointing the reviewer at judgements rather than at volume. This article sets out what the reviewer examines, what the reviewer must write down, how to tell when the review is finished, and what an engagement team can put together to make the review efficient.

An evaluation of judgements, not a second audit

As quoted by ACCA, the IAASB defines an engagement quality review as an objective evaluation of the significant judgements made by the engagement team and the conclusions reached on them, performed by the engagement quality reviewer and completed on or before the date of the engagement report.

Three words in that definition carry the weight. Objective: the reviewer stands outside the team. Significant: the reviewer chooses where to look, guided by the risks, rather than sampling papers at random. Completed on or before the date of the report: the review is part of the engagement, not an afterthought.

ACCA describes the core of the work as follows: the reviewer must review and understand the significant judgements the team made, assess whether the engagement documentation supports them, and consider whether the conclusions reached are appropriate. On a typical audit that points the reviewer to areas such as:

• the risk assessment and the significant risks identified;
• materiality and how it was set;
• estimates with high uncertainty, such as impairment, expected credit losses or provisions;
• going concern;
• the evaluation of misstatements, corrected and uncorrected;
• the proposed form of the auditor's report and any modification or emphasis of matter.

Independence, consultation and the partner's involvement

The reviewer looks beyond the technical judgements. ACCA adds that the reviewer also evaluates the engagement partner's determination about independence, whether appropriate consultation took place on difficult or contentious matters, and the partner's involvement in the engagement.

In practice that means a few direct questions. Did the partner actually conclude on independence, and on what basis? Where the team hit a contentious matter, did it consult, and does the conclusion of that consultation appear in the file and in the outcome? Is there evidence that the partner was involved through the audit, rather than arriving on the last day to sign? The reviewer is not asking these to catch anyone out. A file that cannot answer them is a file whose quality depends on luck.

The reviewer's own documentation

The IAASB's page on ISQM 2 explains that the standard deals with the reviewer's responsibilities for both the performance and the documentation of the engagement quality review. ACCA explains that the reviewer is responsible for documenting the review, that this documentation is filed with the audit documentation, and that it must be detailed enough for an experienced practitioner with no previous connection to the engagement to understand the nature, timing and extent of the review procedures.

That last test is demanding. "Reviewed, no issues" fails it. A reviewer's memo that passes it typically names the areas selected and why, the papers read, the questions raised, how each was answered, and the conclusion reached. It is the reviewer's work, in the reviewer's words, sitting in the same file as the team's.

The stand-back: is the review complete?

ACCA explains that ISQM 2 includes a stand-back requirement: the reviewer must determine whether the engagement quality review is complete, and an audit report cannot be dated before the reviewer makes that determination.

A useful way to make that determination is to ask three closing questions. Have all the matters I raised been resolved, or escalated under the firm's difference-of-opinion policy? Do I have enough to conclude that the significant judgements and the conclusions on them are appropriate? Is my documentation finished? If any answer is no, the review is not complete, and the report date waits.

The quality review stage and report clearance in Achekam

Achekam supports this sequence without doing the reviewer's thinking. A partner can name an engagement quality reviewer for an engagement, and Achekam accepts only a partner or senior manager who is not on the engagement team. For a South African firm, Achekam does not require a reviewer for any engagement type; naming one is the firm's decision under its own policies.

Working papers move through preparation, manager review, partner review, an optional engagement quality review stage, completion and lock. The preparer cannot also review a paper, and Achekam refuses any sign-off made by an AI. Sending a paper back, reopening it or locking it needs a written reason. The reviewer can therefore work inside the papers that matter rather than through a separate stream of e-mails.

At the end, the named reviewer must clear the auditor's report before it can be issued. The engagement partner is the only person who approves the report, and may approve with papers still open by recording a reason, but the reviewer's clearance cannot be bypassed. That is the system's version of the stand-back: until the reviewer is satisfied, the report does not go out.

A pack the team can hand the reviewer

The team can make the review faster and better by preparing a short pack before the reviewer starts:

1. A one-page summary of the engagement, the significant risks and materiality.
2. A list of the significant judgements, each with the working paper reference.
3. The independence conclusion and any threats identified.
4. Every consultation on the engagement, with its conclusion.
5. The schedule of misstatements and the proposed auditor's report.
6. Open points the team already knows about.

With that pack, the reviewer chooses where to dig instead of hunting for where to start. Writing the judgements down properly in the first place helps most; see documenting professional judgements. For the appointment itself, see naming an engagement quality reviewer.

The best engagement quality reviews feel unremarkable to the team: questions asked early, answered on the file, and a report released on time with a review that any outsider could follow.

General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.