Skip to main content
CIA Part 2 · Practice cases

Audit review notes drill: repair the evidence, not just the wording

Resolve a review note by identifying the gap and changing the work, evidence, or conclusion that created it. Rewording an unsupported assertion leaves the problem intact. These five original cases ask you to distinguish a missing procedure, a documentation gap, and a conclusion that exceeds the tested scope.

Try the cases before reviewing the answers

Answer 5 original cases, then check the set and compare the reasoning for each choice. These short learning checks are not a full exam simulation. Answers are not saved or sent.

Question 1: A reviewer cannot reproduce a reported exception total. What best resolves the note?
Compare all three choices
A. Link source amounts, show the calculation, and reconcile the resultBest answer
The response must make the number reproducible and permit reevaluation of the conclusion if reconciliation changes it.
B. Obtain the process manager’s agreement with the reported total
Agreement is not a substitute for the evidence and method behind an audit calculation.
C. Replace the calculated amount with an unexplained rounded estimate
Rounding may simplify presentation, but does not repair the missing calculation or establish its accuracy.
Question 2: A reviewer asks why 20 high-value transactions were selected. What should the workpaper state?
Compare all three choices
A. That the sample represents all transactions because its value coverage is high
High value coverage can support a purpose, but does not automatically make the selection representative of all transaction characteristics.
B. The actual targeted selection rule and the limits of conclusions beyond itBest answer
Document the real rationale, population, and inference limits so a reviewer can judge what the evidence supports.
C. That the selection was random because transaction IDs were not consecutive
Nonconsecutive IDs do not establish random selection. The method must describe what was actually done.
Question 3: Management says a disputed workflow has been fixed. What supports resolving the review note about the control’s current operation?
Compare all three choices
A. The implementation owner’s confirmation email alone
An owner’s statement is a starting point for follow-up, not automatic proof that the control operates as intended.
B. The project’s completion status in the change calendar alone
Completion status can indicate a change was deployed, but does not establish whether it addresses the control issue.
C. Verified change evidence and suitable testing of the revised workflowBest answer
Evidence should address both what changed and whether the relevant control now works. The extent of follow-up should reflect the risk.
Question 4: A note questions population completeness. Which response directly addresses it?
Compare all three choices
A. Reconcile the extraction to a suitable source and investigate differencesBest answer
Reconciliation can establish whether relevant records were omitted and whether the population fits the objective.
B. Increase the sample drawn from the same unreconciled file
A larger selection from the same incomplete file cannot establish that relevant omitted events are covered.
C. Add more explanation of one selected transaction
Detail about one item does not resolve whether the overall population excludes other relevant events.
Question 5: A preparer disagrees with a substantive review note. What is appropriate?
Compare all three choices
A. Delete the note without discussion
Removing the note conceals an unresolved quality issue rather than establishing a supported conclusion.
B. Discuss the evidence and resolve the issue through the review processBest answer
A reasoned discussion and documented resolution allow the disagreement to be assessed on its merits.
C. Close it because the deadline is near
Time pressure does not supply the missing support or remove the need to resolve significant issues.

0 of 5 answered

Classify the note before answering it

  • Evidence missing

    Obtain or perform the necessary work, or explain the resulting limitation.

    Avoid: Replying “discussed” when no support was added.

  • Reasoning unclear

    Explain the link between criterion, result, and conclusion with references.

    Avoid: Adding more unrelated documents.

  • Claim too broad

    Narrow the conclusion or extend the approved work sufficiently.

    Avoid: Replacing “all” with “generally” without reconsidering support.

A decision path you can use

  1. 1Identify the reviewer’s concern
  2. 2Repair the underlying gap
  3. 3Record the resolution for review

Understand the method

Work through the reasoning

Diagnose what the review note is challenging

A review note may challenge the population, criterion, procedure, evidence, or conclusion. Read it as a question about the reasoning chain. If the reviewer asks how the team knows every transaction was included, adding a paragraph about individual exceptions does not answer the completeness concern.

Before choosing an answer in the five-case drill, identify the unsupported link in one sentence. Then look for a response that repairs that link or accurately limits the conclusion. Cosmetic changes may make a workpaper easier to read, but they do not resolve missing evidence.

Obtain support or narrow the claim

Suppose a workpaper concludes that reviews occurred before release, while the evidence records reviewer names without dates. The team needs reliable timing evidence. If suitable evidence cannot be obtained, the conclusion must reflect that limit. A manager’s general assurance that reviews are always timely does not establish the sequence of the tested events.

Additional work should answer the particular gap. A larger selection with the same missing timing attribute leaves the same problem. Ask whether the proposed procedure can distinguish compliance from failure under the actual criterion. This is often the decisive difference between plausible answer choices.

Make the resolution easy to review

A useful response identifies the new work, where its support is located, and how the result affects the conclusion. If the original analysis was wrong, correct the affected outputs consistently. Avoid changing the final sentence while leaving conflicting tables or exception counts in the workpaper.

The reviewer should verify the substantive resolution under the function’s process. Preserve an appropriate review trail rather than treating a note as closed because the preparer marked it complete. A disagreement about the required work should be discussed and resolved through the review structure.

Use the drill to recognize recurring reasoning errors

For each missed question, record the defect and why the attractive alternative fails. Common patterns include confusing approval identity with timing, treating selected records as a complete population, and relying on a review signature to compensate for absent support. Name the pattern rather than memorizing an answer letter.

Retry the cases after explaining the necessary evidence in your own words. The aim is to transfer the method to unfamiliar facts. Five original practice cases provide a focused exercise, not a validated readiness score or a prediction of exam performance.

Original teaching example

Apply the method to a decision

The scenario

The reviewer asks how a sample of one branch supports a conclusion about 40 branches. The draft response says the selected branch was easy to visit.

The decision

The response does not justify the inference. Reassess scope and coverage before retaining the broad conclusion.

Convenience explains access, not representativeness. Additional work may be required, or the conclusion may need to describe only the selected branch. Keep the rationale and the reviewer’s resolution visible.

Independent hypothetical case. It is not an official IIA question, an actual investigation, or a scoring prediction.

A second application

The response says “updated” but the claim is unchanged

The situation

A reviewer questions a whole-year conclusion supported by one month. The preparer adds the tested month to a footnote but retains the whole-year conclusion.

Reason through it

The added disclosure does not supply the missing coverage or align the conclusion with the evidence. The team must obtain suitable additional support or change the claim and communicate the limitation.

Take the decision

Resolve the underlying inference, then check every affected part of the workpaper and report.

Original hypothetical teaching case.

Questions about this topic

Can the auditor close their own review note?

Follow the function’s review methodology. The response should show what changed and allow the responsible reviewer to determine whether the concern is resolved, rather than silently removing the note.

What should I write down after missing a review-note question?

Record the unsupported link, the evidence or correction needed, and why the alternative you selected fails to address it. That diagnosis is more useful than memorizing the wording of the correct option.

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: Engagement Supervision and Communication (10% of Part 2). This is a domain allocation, not a separate weight for this lesson.

Global Internal Audit Standards reference
Locator: Standards 12.3 and 14.6. 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.