Accounting review checklist: find problems, get answers and record approval

A review checklist often repeats the preparer's checklist in more detail. That adds work but can still miss errors. Separate the jobs instead. The preparer completes the file. The reviewer checks it and sends questions back. The reviewer should not silently rewrite an entry when they disagree with it.

An exception is an item that needs an answer: a figure that does not match, an unusual balance or a missing document. Record who found it, what they asked, how it was resolved and who approved the fix. That gives the firm a record it can explain later. A spoken correction may be forgotten by next month.

Treat review as a distinct role, not a final pass

Larger assurance engagements, which provide a professional conclusion about information, commonly separate preparation from review. An engagement partner, manager, supporting staff and quality reviewer may each have a different role. A small firm rarely has four people available for this. Still, review should be more than the preparer rereading their own work on the same day.

If you prepare and check the same file yourself, separate those steps by time and method. A next-day check against the original source documents can give you a fresh look. It is still a second self-check, not an independent review. An independent review requires another person to check the work. Do not describe your own second check as independent.

Name the exception instead of describing a feeling

“Something looks off” is a reason to investigate, not a clear description of the problem. Name the client file, exact figure or document, question, supporting evidence needed, person following up and target date. Industry commentary often recommends this split: the reviewer raises a question and the preparer resolves it. The aim is a useful check, not approval as a formality.

• Client and file: which engagement, which period.
• Item: the exact account, figure or document.
• Question: what specifically does not match or is missing.
• Evidence requested: the document or confirmation that would close it.
• Owner and date: who is answering it, and by when.

Case file: a $212 deposit variance

A fictional small-business file shows a bank deposit of $4,380 against invoices totaling $4,168 for the same date — a $212 difference. Instead of adjusting the invoice total to match the deposit, the reviewer logs it as an open exception addressed to the preparer.

Original case: exception log through resolution

Step	Who	Note
1. Flag raised	Reviewer	Deposit of $4,380 exceeds invoice total of $4,168 by $212; source unclear.
2. Explanation offered	Preparer	The $212 is a refunded processing fee the payment processor bundled into the same payout.
3. Evidence requested	Reviewer	Processor payout statement showing the fee refund line item.
4. Evidence provided	Preparer	Payout statement attached to the client file, dated and matched line by line.
5. Sign-off	Reviewer	Exception closed with a dated note referencing the attached statement.

Nothing was fixed by assumption. A document explained the $212; it was not hidden in a rounding adjustment. The file now shows why the numbers differ. That helps the next person who asks, including the client.

Decide, in advance, who flags, who fixes and who signs off

Write down the roles before review starts. The preparer is responsible for the original entry and answers each question with an explanation or correction. The reviewer raises questions and checks the answers, rather than silently changing entries. The firm owner or designated approver confirms that the file is ready to send. In the one-person process described here, that person reviews their own work a day later before giving approval.

Match review depth to risk, not to habit

Checking every line of every file in the same detail is rarely practical. It does not automatically improve results. Many firms spend more review time on new clients, the first month-end, unusually large or round-number entries, and accounts with past corrections. Routine repeat entries may get a lighter check. The firm decides and records this approach. It is not a built-in software feature that scores risk or flags problems.

What a coordination tool can and cannot do here

In Bookwits, you can assign a review checklist as a task and attach requested documents to the client's document record. Bookwits Sign can keep a dated, signed confirmation of approval. Bookwits does not decide which items need investigation, apply an audit method, find differences automatically or guarantee an error-free file. The firm remains responsible for review decisions and the professional standards it follows.