Audit interviews and walkthroughs: turn descriptions into evidence
An interview explains how people say a process works. A walkthrough traces a transaction through the process and supporting records. Use open questions, inspect handoffs and exceptions, and corroborate explanations. One successful walkthrough does not establish consistent operation across the whole period.
Ask, trace, and challenge
| Decision | How to apply it | Mistake to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Open inquiry | Ask “What happens when the approver is absent?” and request an example. | Leading with “The deputy always approves correctly, right?” |
| Transaction tracing | Follow an actual item through initiation, approval, processing, and recording. | Accepting a process diagram without observing its use. |
| Corroboration | Compare the explanation with timestamps, access rights, and exception records. | Treating confident testimony as conclusive operating evidence. |
Open inquiry
Ask “What happens when the approver is absent?” and request an example.
Avoid: Leading with “The deputy always approves correctly, right?”
Transaction tracing
Follow an actual item through initiation, approval, processing, and recording.
Avoid: Accepting a process diagram without observing its use.
Corroboration
Compare the explanation with timestamps, access rights, and exception records.
Avoid: Treating confident testimony as conclusive operating evidence.
A decision path you can use
- 1Ask how the process works
- 2Trace a real transaction
- 3Compare evidence with the explanation
Understand the method
Work through the reasoning
Prepare questions around the process and risk
An interview helps explain how people understand and perform a process. Identify the objective, select participants with relevant roles, and prepare open questions about ordinary activity and exceptions. Ask an operator to describe a recent transaction rather than merely confirming that the written procedure is followed.
Start with neutral questions and follow up on specific details. “What happens when the approver is absent?” is more informative than suggesting the answer you expect. Explain the purpose and appropriate information-handling arrangements. Avoid promising confidentiality beyond the limits of the authorized engagement and applicable requirements.
Walk through an actual transaction
A walkthrough traces an item across initiation, processing, approval, recording, and relevant handoffs. Observe the systems and records used, and compare the described process with what the selected item shows. Ask who can change or override each important step and what evidence the control leaves behind.
Include an exception path when it is relevant, such as an emergency purchase or a rejected request. One ordinary transaction may reveal the standard design while missing the route with greater exposure. Keep a record of the item selected, people consulted, documents examined, and discrepancies requiring follow-up.
Corroborate what people tell you
An employee may accurately describe intended practice but not know how consistently it occurs. Another may describe a workaround that management has not recognized. Compare accounts with system records, documents, and observations. Differences are reasons to investigate rather than immediate proof that someone is dishonest.
Be alert to rehearsed demonstrations and access that differs from ordinary conditions. If a supervisor performs a step only during the visit, the walkthrough demonstrates that it can be done, not that it normally occurs. Use the understanding gained to design suitable operating-effectiveness procedures where assurance over a period is required.
Separate process understanding from operating assurance
A walkthrough can identify control design, implementation, and potential gaps. It normally does not establish consistent operation throughout a broad period by itself. State what was observed and what remains to be tested. This distinction prevents one successfully demonstrated transaction from becoming an unsupported annual conclusion.
Summarize material facts and clarify misunderstandings with relevant participants. Preserve disagreements and unresolved questions in the record. Translate the results into the risk assessment and work program, including additional sources, populations, or procedures needed to answer the engagement objective.
Original teaching example
Apply the method to a decision
The scenario
A clerk says all vendor bank changes receive a callback to a known contact. During a walkthrough, the callback note uses the phone number supplied in the same change request.
The decision
Question whether the callback independently verifies the request.
The activity occurred, but its design may fail against impersonation because the requester controlled the contact number. Ask where trusted contact details are maintained and trace another change using that independent source.
Independent hypothetical case. It is not an official IIA question, an actual investigation, or a scoring prediction.
A second application
The emergency route differs from the demonstration
The situation
A manager demonstrates a purchase with two approvals. An operator explains that urgent orders are emailed directly to suppliers and entered into the system later.
Reason through it
The standard demonstration does not explain the emergency route’s authorization and recording risks. Trace a relevant urgent order and examine the actual evidence, including any later review.
Take the decision
Use the conflicting accounts to improve process understanding and testing. Do not conclude that the normal workflow covers all purchases.
Original hypothetical teaching case.
Check your understanding
Choose the best answer, then check the reasoning for each alternative. These short learning checks are not a full exam simulation. Answers are not saved or sent.
Questions about this topic
What should I do when two interviewees describe different processes?
Treat the inconsistency as a lead. Identify whether they describe different locations, periods, or exceptions, then inspect records and observe the relevant workflows. Do not choose the more confident speaker by default.
Should an interview disagreement automatically become a finding?
No. Clarify definitions, responsibilities, and timing, then corroborate the relevant facts. A finding requires an evaluated condition against suitable criteria, with sufficient support for its significance.
Sources and syllabus scope
Prepared by MiloPrep editorial team. Source links checked 2026-10-10. These notes and cases are independent teaching material; the IIA sources do not verify or endorse them.
- IIA expanded syllabus
Establishes the examined topics. Primary domain: Information Gathering, Analysis, and Evaluation (40% of Part 2). This is a domain allocation, not a separate weight for this lesson.
- Global Internal Audit Standards reference
- Locator: Standards 14.1-14.2. Supports the professional requirements cited here; our scenarios and solution steps are original applications. Current IIA Standards resources.
Part 2: Internal Audit Engagement. Selected learning notes, not complete curriculum coverage. Browse all CIA topics.