Review Notes: How to Write Them, Answer Them and Clear Them Without Rework

Review notes are the written record of supervision. They show that someone more senior read the work and found it complete, or found it wanting and required changes. They are also where audit time leaks: vague notes, unanswered questions, notes cleared with a one-word reply. This post sets out a process for writing, answering and clearing notes. For the underlying review responsibilities see supervision and review of outsourced work and AU-C 220.

What the standard needs from the file

AU-C 230 requires the file to show who reviewed the work, when, and the extent of the review. The reviewer's initials and date on the workpaper cover the first two. The extent is shown by the review notes and the clearing record. A workpaper signed with no notes and no discussion invites the question of what the reviewer actually read. For significant areas, a note summarizing what the reviewer looked at and what conclusion they reached is stronger than a sign-off.

What a good note says

A good note contains four things:

1. Where. The workpaper reference and the cell, row or paragraph.
2. What is wrong or missing. In one sentence.
3. What is needed to clear it. The action, not just the complaint.
4. Priority. Must clear before the report, or may be addressed in the next phase.

Compare:

A note that states the fix saves a round trip.

Classify notes

Group notes into types so the manager can see where the file stands:

• Documentation: missing initials, dates, references, tick mark legend.
• Evidence: insufficient support, missing source, no corroboration.
• Judgment: the conclusion is not supported, the explanation is thin, the risk assessment is not followed through.
• Technical: accounting or auditing issue, such as a wrong standard or a disclosure omission.
• Significant: might change the opinion or require partner attention.

Significant notes go to the manager and partner immediately, not at the end of the review pass.

How to answer

The preparer answers each note with evidence, not a promise.

• Show the fix: updated workpaper, new tick marks, additional evidence.
• Cross-reference the new work to the note: "see E-3.1 added."
• If you disagree, say so and give the reason. The reviewer decides.
• Answer in the file system or on the workpaper, not by hallway conversation. A conversation that resolves a note gets summarized in the answer.

Never clear a note by deleting it. Answer it and let the reviewer clear it.

Clearing

The reviewer reads the answer, checks the revised workpaper, and clears the note with initials and date. The clearing record shows:

• The original note.
• The preparer's response and date.
• The reviewer's clearance and date.

If the answer is insufficient, the note stays open with a follow-up comment. Open notes at the report date are a documentation completion problem and a quality problem. A file with open notes at the report date cannot show that the review is complete.

Retain or discard

The guidance on audit documentation distinguishes between records that belong in the file and drafts that do not. AU-C 230 does not require the file to hold superseded drafts, notes reflecting incomplete or preliminary thinking or duplicate copies, and those can be removed during assembly, before the documentation completion date. After that date nothing is deleted before the retention period ends. Review notes fall in a gray area: unanswered questions are preliminary, but a note that raised a significant matter and its resolution is evidence of the review and the resolution.

A reasonable policy:

• Keep review notes and clearing records for significant matters, for notes that led to changes in conclusions, and for all notes on high-risk areas.
• Discard routine notes about formatting or typos once they are cleared and before the documentation completion date, if the firm's policy allows.
• Never discard a note that raised a matter inconsistent with the final conclusion without recording how the inconsistency was resolved.
• Apply the same policy on every engagement and write it down in the firm's quality management documentation.

The policy needs to be written, applied consistently and consistent with the firm's retention policy. See audit record retention.

Timing of review

Plan reviews in stages:

1. Planning review: risk assessment, materiality, the audit programs. Before fieldwork starts.
2. Interim review: completed areas as they finish, so notes do not pile up at the end.
3. Final review: manager and partner on completion, including financial statements tie-out and disclosures.
4. Engagement quality review, when required. See engagement quality review.

Staged review reduces the end-of-engagement crush. See busy season capacity planning.

Worked example

A manager's note on the payroll accrual workpaper: "J-4: accrual recomputed at $123,600 but client booked $118,000. Difference $5,600 is not on the log. Add to the adjusting entry log or explain why it is trivial, and note the clearly trivial threshold used."

The preparer's response: "Added as PJE-9 on C-2, effect $15,055: the $5,600 plus employer payroll taxes of $9,455 (7.65 percent of $123,600), which I had left out of the first calculation and the client had not booked. See J-4.1 for the corrected recompute. Clearly trivial threshold is $9,000 per B-3, so the item is above the threshold and carried to the schedule."

The manager checks J-4.1, agrees the amount to C-2 and C-3, initials the clearing and dates it. The record shows the question, the answer, the changed numbers and the clearance.

Common failures

• Notes cleared by the preparer instead of the reviewer.
• Answers that say "done" with no cross-reference.
• Review at the end only, with a hundred notes the week before the report date.
• A reviewer who signs without any note on a difficult area.
• Open notes at release.

Checklist

• Every workpaper has reviewer initials and date.
• Every note has a response and a clearance.
• Significant notes are flagged and resolved by the manager and partner.
• No open notes at the report date.
• The retention policy for notes is written and applied.

CORAA prepares ready-to-review audit files for US CPA firms; the firm keeps the client, the review and the signature. See /us.

Sources

• AICPA, AU-C Section 230, Audit Documentation; AU-C Section 220, Quality Management for an Engagement Conducted in Accordance With Generally Accepted Auditing Standards
• Open Exam Prep, audit documentation and quality management: open-exam-prep.com
• U.S. Government Accountability Office, Financial Audit Manual, Volume 1 (GAO-26-108577), June 2026: gao.gov

AU-C references are to AICPA Professional Standards, paraphrased here; read the standard itself before relying on a requirement. This page is guidance, not professional advice. Report an error