Working paper review stages and review notes
How a working paper moves from preparation through manager, partner and quality review to lock in Achekam, and how review notes are raised and cleared.
By Achekam · · 4 min read · For Accountants & audit firms in South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya
On a paper-based or spreadsheet file, review notes live in a separate document, or as comments in the margin, or in an e-mail the manager sent on a Friday. When a note is "cleared", it is usually deleted. By the time anyone asks whether the reviewer's concern about the provision was ever answered, the evidence that the concern existed has gone with it.
ISA 220 (Revised) and ISA 230 both expect the file to show who performed the work, who reviewed it and when, and that significant matters were resolved. The IAASB's page on ISA 220 (Revised) describes the standard, which sets the engagement partner's and the engagement team's responsibilities for managing quality on an audit of financial statements. This article explains how Achekam moves a working paper through its review stages, how review notes are raised and cleared without disappearing, and which decisions require a written reason.
The stages a paper passes through
Every working paper moves through the same sequence:
- Preparation, by the person doing the work.
- Manager review.
- Partner review.
- Engagement quality review, an optional stage used where the firm has named an engagement quality reviewer.
- Completion.
- Lock.
A locked paper cannot be changed. Before lock, a paper can be sent back to an earlier stage when the reviewer is not satisfied, and a completed paper can be reopened if something new comes to light.
The stages are visible in the Working Paper Control Centre, which shows the file as an index with progress by status. The same papers can be grouped by preparer, reviewer, risk or statement line, which is how a manager sees, for example, every paper on the revenue line that is still in preparation just before the partner's visit.
Who may review what
Two rules hold throughout.
The preparer cannot also review the same paper. On a small team it is tempting for the senior who prepared a section to "review" it on the manager's behalf when the manager is busy. Achekam refuses that.
Achekam also refuses any sign-off made by an AI. AI can help with drafting on a paper, but each stage is signed off by a person; what AI may and may not do on working papers is set out in AI drafts on working papers.
Review notes that keep their history
A reviewer raises review notes on a working paper. The preparer answers each note, and the reviewer clears it. Each note's history is kept: who raised it, what was said, how it was answered and when it was cleared.
Notes are reached from Audit & Assurance, Review Notes, which gives the reviewer's view across the file, or from the Review notes tab on an individual paper. AI can suggest notes, but a person raises each one.
A note is most useful when it can be answered without a conversation. Compare two notes on a debtors paper:
- "Please look at this."
- "The allowance for credit losses does not consider the debtor in business rescue listed in the age analysis. Please assess whether a specific allowance is needed and update the conclusion."
The second can be answered, and the answer can be checked. The first produces a phone call, which leaves nothing on the file.
Decisions that need a reason
Three actions need a written reason: sending a paper back, reopening it and locking it.
Sending back and reopening are the obvious ones, because they undo progress and the team needs to know why. Locking needs a reason too, which surprises some teams. In practice it becomes a short statement of why the paper is complete: all notes cleared, conclusion agreed, figures agreed to the final trial balance. That sentence is useful evidence when the file is inspected.
Desks for each level
Each professional has a My Work list and a Professional Inbox, so a preparer sees what is waiting for them, including papers sent back with notes to answer. The Supervision, Manager and Partner desks show each level's review queue, returned work and risks.
One point to make clear to new managers: opening a review from a desk does not by itself give sign-off authority. The desk is a way into the work, not a grant of permission.
A worked example in words
A senior prepares the inventory paper and moves it to manager review. The manager raises two notes: one about the count differences at a branch, one asking for the cut-off testing to be extended to the last week of the year. The senior answers both, extending the testing and attaching the results. The manager clears the first note but not the second, because the extended testing found an error, and sends the paper back with that reason. The senior records the error as a finding, answers the note again, and the manager clears it and moves the paper to partner review. The partner reads it, signs off, and the paper moves through completion to lock with the reason "notes cleared, conclusion agreed to final figures".
Every one of those steps is on the paper's history, including the note that was not cleared the first time.
Making it work in your firm
- Agree what a good review note looks like and show examples to new staff.
- Use the control centre grouped by status before every review meeting, rather than asking people for updates.
- Treat the written reasons for sending back and locking as part of the evidence, not as a formality.
- Remind managers that a desk shows work, not authority.
The papers themselves come from the firm's methodology, as described in generating an engagement's working papers.
Start with the notes
If your team currently clears review notes by deleting them, start there. Run one engagement with every note raised, answered and cleared in Achekam, and look at the file at the end: the history of the notes is often the best record of the judgement that went into the audit.
General guidance only, not advice on your own circumstances. Tax and payroll rules change: check the current position with the authority or your adviser.
