WORKPAPER SELF-REVIEW CHECKLIST

This checklist is to be used as a guide for workpaper preparers to ensure that each workpaper
is consistent and meets the baseline quality requirements. By performing a self-review of the
workpaper, the Auditor/Preparer reduces the workpaper review time and the number of
coaching notes.

Review Areas Completed?

GENERAL:

Workpapers able to “stand alone”. This means that an individual independent of the
preparer should be able to determine, for each work paper, the purpose and conclusion of
the document, and how that individual work paper relates to the rest of the work papers.

Sufficient information is factual, adequate, and convincing so that a prudent, informed

person would reach the same conclusions as the auditor.

Workpapers are consistent and uniform in terms of size and appearance.

Tickmarks are used appropriately and consistently throughout the workpaper.

Note: Tickmarks should be used to explain control deviations.

Cross-referencing within work papers complete and accurate.

A spelling and grammar check has been performed.

The title of all personnel noted in the workpaper is documented.

OPERATING EFFECTIVENESS:

Does the “Operating Effectiveness” tab have the following areas correctly documented:

• Nature of testing (select all that apply).

• Note: Inquiry alone is not sufficient.

• Timing (Coverage Date) is appropriately documented (i.e. As of 6/30/2018 or

1/1/2018 through 6/30/2018).
• This date is not to be confused with the test date.

• Completeness & Accuracy (C&A) testing over the source of the population was
performed, including a reasonable test (i.e. IA traced five (5) known users to the
report without exception, etc.).
 •

•
Note: For standard/canned reports for a non-SAP system, did we document how
we confirmed (beyond inquiry) that the information provided by the entity is
standard/canned report.

Population appropriately identified and documented.

2
• Note: If the population wasn’t a system generated listing from the source system,
did we document how we’re comfortable (i.e. audit procedures) that the population
obtained is a fair and reasonable representation of the population?

• The appropriate sample was selected based on the sampling guidance

• Note (Interim only): Was the population annualized?

• A summary of the results is documented by addressing each of the test

step/procedure in the “Operating Effectiveness Testing Results” column.

• A conclusion regarding the operating effectiveness of the key control activity

(effective or ineffective) is documented.

• For a sample of one, did you include clear screenshots of the evidence inspected
to test the relevant attributes on the “Supporting Evidence” tab?
• Were the screenshots on the “Supporting Evidence” annotated (i.e. highlight the
information inspected to test the attribute)?
• Does each screenshot on the “Supporting Evidence” tab have a title or brief
description?

The testing attribute descriptions on the “Operating Effectiveness” and “Testing Table”
tabs are identical.

CONTROL DEFICIENCY:

• A description of the control gaps or issues identified as a result of the testing

performed.

• Root cause of the deficiency documented (including who the auditory inquired,
and when the inquiry was performed).

• Mitigating procedures were performed and C&A procedures over the information
used to performed the mitigating procedures is documented.

Does the workpaper document the date of inquiry/observation and the name and title of
the person(s) interviewed and/or observed?

WORKPAPER SELF-REVIEW CHECKLIST DOCUMENT OWNER: JAMEL CALHOUN