Square is to Rectangle as Control is to Process: The Distinction Between Processes and Controls

For those who remember the SAT exam, the verbal portion of the test used to include analogies where you had to identify the relationship between two words presented and then select two words that had the same correlation from the multiple choice options. For example, some words were antonyms, such as “hot is to cold,” and thus the correct answer would be two words that were also antonyms, such as “high is to low.”

For purposes of this article, I’ll propose the following:

Analogy: square : rectangle :: control : process

Relationship: All squares are rectangles just like all controls are processes. However, not all rectangles are squares, just like not all processes are controls.

The emergence of internal controls really took shape when Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (SOX). The act required companies to formalize and evaluate their internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) and, depending on size of the company, auditors were then required to report on the design and operating effectiveness of ICFR. Though internal controls were hardly new, this was the golden era of SOX-implementation.

Now, nearly 18 years later, ICFR may seem like old news, but through my work with firms performing in-flight and lookback reviews or advising engagement teams with their audit planning discussions, I am finding more and more that engagement teams struggle to understand the distinction between processes and controls. This distinction is critical to identify the appropriate controls that address potential “what could go wrongs” in a process and cover the risks of material misstatement in financial reporting.

As you know, as part of planning, auditors are required to obtain an understanding of the design of controls for significant classes of transactions. This understanding is required as part of risk assessment. For ICFR audits or audits with planned controls reliance, in addition to understanding design, engagement teams must also test the operating effectiveness of controls.

Often, engagement teams obtain a process narrative and perform a high-level control walkthrough, identifying easy controls such as dual check signatures or bank reconciliations. However, I find that many teams fail to adequately dig in to the process at a granular level to really understand the controls.

An example process is “sales to cash” which covers the processing of information from the initial receipt of a purchase order through to cash collections. Understanding the overall process is critical, but even more important is truly understanding the specific controls embedded in the process that are part of ICFR. Controls by their very nature are either “preventive” or “detective.” A simple example of a revenue “process” might be as follows:

Once an item is shipped, the invoice is generated and sent to the client for payment.

While this is a simple statement that describes the process, the generation of the invoice, itself, is not inherently a control.

If the Accounting Manager manually generates the invoice, what is the control that prevents or detects errors in the invoice creation? The control would be the separate review and approval of the invoice by someone other than the preparer (i.e. the controller) and would include a reconciliation to the packing slip and purchase order for key revenue recognition terms such as price, quantity, terms, and date. The generation of the invoice itself is part of the process but is not a control. The review is also part of the process but is a control to ensure the invoice is complete and accurate. In addition, other controls that should be built into this process would include review and approval over the journal entry to record revenue, AR, inventory and COGS debits and credits.

What if the invoice is automatically generated? For example, the invoice is generated in the system when inventory items are marked as “shipped” in the inventory module. Whereas the manual process might be covered by one manual control, the automated generation of an invoice is likely to have several automated controls built into the system, such as:

Invoice automatically pulls shipped quantity via interface with the inventory module. ¹
Invoice automatically pulls price from the purchase order.
Invoice cannot be generated without shipment from the inventory module.
Manual price or quantity adjustments on the invoice automatically require separate approval based on pre-set limits within the system.
Generation of an invoice automatically debits AR and credits revenue in the GL.

These are all automated controls that exist in the system, but are often overlooked when engagement teams obtain an understanding of the process.

While I speak from my own experience, in its Staff Update and Preview of 2019 Inspection Observations , the PCAOB identified numerous, recurring ICFR deficiencies, including the following:

Auditors did not identify and test controls that sufficiently addressed the risks of material misstatement related to relevant assertions of certain significant accounts.

I think there are multiple reasons for the lack of understanding of the distinction between processes and controls and thus the failure to sufficiently identify controls that address potential risks of material misstatement.

Changes to ICFR

The ICFR framework is perpetually changing within companies as they grow and evolve. For fiscal year 2020, process have changed for most companies as they have had to adapt to remote work environments ² . If the process has changed, then the controls (which are part of the process) have also inherently changed.

Given the impacts on most P&Ls as a result of COVID 19, materiality thresholds are likely to be lower in FY 2020 and thus new accounts might be in scope. Or, alternatively, there could be new significant and unusual transactions that are occurring in FY 2020 where companies must design controls for transactions that have not otherwise previously occurred. Typically, these controls are management review controls which are often more complex controls with specific auditing considerations ³ .

It’s no longer “same as last year.” That means companies and engagement teams need to dig in to understand the new processes more fully and separately identify the new controls.

To understand processes, whether new, modified, or unchanged, I find it helpful to use flowcharts, breaking down the process into a step by step transactional flow. When I coach engagement teams in this area, I recommend asking detailed questions and literally go step by step. “What happens next?” For anything that takes place in the system, ask the client, “Where did those numbers come from?” or “What triggers that interface? that batch? that invoice?”

Most clients have a controls matrix that inventories all controls. If they don’t, ask for one; ICFR is first and foremost the responsibility of management. As engagement teams perform walkthroughs and write up a process narrative, consider including specific references to each control (from the matrix) so it’s clear where in the process these controls occur. Then take a step back and for each control, ask “what is preventive or detective here?” If you can’t answer that question, ask the client that same question.

For more senior members of engagement teams, when reviewing flowcharts and narratives, take a more critical approach in asking the question, “What could go wrong?” Then ask, “What control addresses this risk?”

Continued Integration of Technology in ICFR

While IT has made operations significantly more efficient for companies, I think it has also contributed to a further lack of understanding of controls. Engagement teams understand that data goes into a system but fail to understand what is occurring in the system and how the configuration is actually a series of automated controls.

Again, this goes back to the importance of understanding each step in the process and how the system processes data. Consider including IT auditors when performing walkthroughs since more and more companies are automating operations. As IT becomes more pervasive, the more internal controls will become IT dependent.

Despite continued automation, there are almost always capabilities for manual overrides and workarounds, so keep asking questions like, “What happens if there’s an exception?” or “What are the controls around manual overrides?”

Lack of Experience in ICFR

I started working in public accounting in 2006 and my start class was one of the last classes to really focus on ICFR implementation. Of course, there are new SOX implementations when clients grow large enough to fall in scope for ICFR compliance or when clients go public. But that is rare. While firms continue to do ICFR training, there is a difference in knowledge and experience gained from simply taking an ICFR training and going through an ICFR implementation. My start class, most of whom are now senior managers, directors and partners within accounting firms or upper-level accounting executives at companies, was the last class to experience mass ICFR implementation across multiple clients. It’s important that firms continue to provide training over ICFR for more junior staff, but they must also be sure to provide hands-on teaching and mentoring from more experienced staff who can pull from years of experience in SOX-implementation. As well, for more complex controls, such as management review controls it is critical to involve experienced auditors in the review.

Given the increasing volume of data, automation of information processing and the PCAOB and SEC’s continued focus on ICFR, internal controls are not going away. It’s important we continue to drill down into processes and understand “what is the process” versus “what is the control.” And remember the square to rectangle analogy: controls are a process, but the process is not necessarily a control.

And for those of you who remember (and probably hated) the analogies section on the SAT exam, you’ll be happy to know that they are no longer part of the verbal section. In fact, the entire verbal section has been replaced by two sections including “reading” and “writing and language.” Perhaps it could best be summarized by the following:

Analogy: new : similar :: change : same

Relationship: New format, same skills, just like the more things change, the more they stay the same, really.

About Johnson Global Advisory

Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB and SEC staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporate solutions which navigate those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide.

Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.

¹ Note that the interface would have its own set of controls to ensure appropriate communication of data from the inventory system to the revenue system.

² For more information on COVID-19 considerations as regards internal control, please refer to the following: https://www.jgacpa.com/side-effects-of-covid-19-internal-controls-in-a-time-of-pervasive-change

³ For more information on testing management review controls, please refer to the following: https://www.jgacpa.com/meeting-pcaob-requirements-for-icfr-achieving-compliance-with-the-vaguest-of-standards

< Older Post

Newer Post >

Audit Documentation: From Low-Hanging Fruit to Load-Bearing Standard

By Stephanie Mickens • March 30, 2026

In a previous article, Back to Basics: Audit Documentation Failures Have Become Dangerous Low Hanging Fruit , we highlighted how audit documentation had quietly re-emerged as a source of regulatory risk after years of relative deprioritization. While PCAOB Auditing Standard 1215, Audit Documentation (AS 1215), has historically been cited less frequently than other standards, our direct experience from recent inspection activity, enforcement actions, and internal inspection results, demonstrate that documentation failures are increasingly treated as indicators of deeper execution, supervision, and quality management breakdowns. In today’s environment, audit documentation is no longer merely a record of work performed. It is the primary evidence inspectors rely on to evaluate whether an engagement was properly planned, executed, and supported at the time the auditor’s report was issued. What has been low-hanging fruit now requires firms to close these gaps and transform them into a load-bearing foundation for audit quality. From Rare Enforcement to Systemic Inspection Risk AS 1215 establishes clear requirements regarding what must be documented, when documentation must be completed, and how engagement files must be assembled and retained. As discussed in our prior article, failures to comply with these requirements were historically viewed as technical or secondary issues, often resulting in inspection comments rather than enforcement action. That distinction is no longer meaningful. Recent enforcement actions involving backdating, improper (both intentionally, and inadvertent) modification of workpapers, and failure to timely assemble a complete audit file reflect an evolving regulatory view. Documentation failures do not simply violate procedural requirements; they call into question the credibility of the audit opinion itself. More importantly, beyond enforcement, documentation deficiencies are increasingly cited as core inspection findings. Inspectors are challenging situations where engagement teams assert that work was performed but cannot demonstrate that work within the archived file. In these cases, the absence of timely, complete, and clear documentation is no longer treated as a formality. It is treated as evidence that the engagement may not have been properly executed, supervised, or supported in accordance with PCAOB standards. This represents a fundamental shirt. Documentation is no longer “low-hanging fruit.” It is a systemic inspection risk that cuts across execution, supervision, and firm-level quality management. From Misconduct to Execution Failures Pervasive documentation failures that do not involve intentional misconduct but still result in non-compliance are increasingly observed. For example, reviewer signoffs occurring near the documentation completion date, rather than contemporaneously with the performance of audit procedures, raise questions about whether effective supervision occurred during the audit or was deferred to meeting archiving deadlines. Similarly, engagement teams may assert that key judgments can be explained verbally, even when those judgments are not clearly documented in the audit file. In today’s environment, the distinction between “we can explain it” and “it is clearly documented” is critical. If procedures, judgments, and conclusions are not evident in the documentation itself, inspectors increasingly conclude that the work was not performed in accordance with PCAOB standards. The issue is not whether the engagement team can explain what they did after the fact. The issue is whether the archived documentation allows an experienced auditor, with no prior connection to the engagement, to understand the procedures performed, evidence obtained, and conclusions reached at the time of the auditor’s report. When documentation fails to reach that standard, inspectors are increasingly concluding that the audit itself was not properly executed, regardless of intent. This reflects an important shift. Documentation failures are no longer viewed primarily as misconduct. They are viewed as symptoms of execution breakdowns, including delayed supervision, compressed review cycles, and audit workflows that defer documentation until the end of the engagement. As a result, AS 1215 has become a direct proxy for how audits are actually performed in practice. How the 14-Day Documentation Completion Requirement Changes the Risk Profile The execution risks are further amplified by the PCAOB’s shortened documentation completion timeline. Recent amendments to AS 1215 reduce the timeframe to assemble a complete and final audit file from 45 days to 14 days after the report release date. While this change may appear procedural, its implications are operational. Under this accelerated timeline, engagement teams no longer have a meaningful post-issuance window to resolve review notes, complete documentation, or finalize supervisory evidence. What were once viewed as “clean-up” activities are now more likely to result in timing violations and non-compliance. This shift places increased emphasis on: Contemporaneous documentation Real-time supervision Realistic workload and staffing models Audit Documentation as a Cornerstone of Audit Quality Audit documentation has long been described as low-hanging fruit in the inspection process. That characterization no longer reflects its role in today’s regulatory environment. Documentation now serves as the primary lens through which regulators assess whether an engagement was properly executed, supervised, and supported. With shortened timelines, expanded quality management expectations, and increased regulatory scrutiny, firms can no longer treat documentation as a downstream activity. It must be embedded into how engagements are planned, staffed, reviewed, and completed. In an environment where inspection conclusions are driven by what is, and what is not, in the audit file, strong documentation is not merely defensive. It is foundational to audit quality. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. For more information, please contact your JGA audit quality expert .

Accounting Firm Acquisitions: Why Due Diligence and Integration Determine Long-Term Success

By Boyd O'Rourke • March 30, 2026

Mergers and acquisitions within the accounting firm industry continue to accelerate, driven by succession planning needs, technology investment, talent constraints, geographic expansion, and the pursuit of new service lines. The pace and volume of transactions is being fueled, in large part, by private equity investment in the accounting firm space. Yet as deal activity accelerates, so does a critical reality: the long term success of an acquisition is determined well before the transaction closes—and long after the announcement is made. Experience across the profession shows that insufficient due diligence and poorly executed post acquisition integration are the most common sources of value erosion in accounting firm transactions. What the Regulator is saying and How JGA sees it At the AICPA December 2025 conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, common topics were the presence of private equity in the accounting firm space and the opportunities and challenges that come with this investment. As it relates to private equity, then-acting PCAOB Chair George Botic noted that while these investments have the potential to enhance audit quality by increasing firm capacity and modernizing audit tools with advanced technologies, the presence of private equity presents a risk that firms shift incentives to prioritize profitability over audit quality. Mr. Botic stated, “Both AI and private equity investments in accounting firms carry the potential to truly reshape the profession. Yet these opportunities come with clear challenges to ensure that overreliance on AI and the pressures of private equity do not jeopardize audit quality.” At JGA, we expect the PCAOB to increase its inspection focus on a firm’s system of quality management. To the extent that acquisitions present quality risks to a firm, we expect increased attention from the PCAOB in terms of how firms are managing these risks. Due Diligence: Looking Beyond the Numbers Financial performance, partner buy ins, and deal structure naturally receive significant attention during an acquisition. However, professional services firms—particularly those providing audit and assurance services—certain of the greatest risks often reside outside the financial statements. Effective accounting firm due diligence must assess not only what the target firm has earned, but how it has earned it—and whether that performance is sustainable. This includes gaining a deep understanding of: Audit quality history, including inspection and peer review results, Independence, ethics, and regulatory compliance practices, Industries served, industry concentration and related expertise, Client concentration, retention trends, and engagement risk profiles, Partner governance, compensation alignment, and succession readiness, Technology platforms, data security, and scalability, and Firm culture, leadership dynamics, and decision making processes. When these areas are not rigorously evaluated, issues frequently surface after the transaction closing—when remediation is more disruptive, more expensive, and far more visible to regulators, clients, and staff. The Risks of Inadequate Due Diligence Inadequate diligence often leads to unanticipated post transaction challenges, including: Regulatory findings related to legacy engagements, Independence violations requiring retroactive remediation, Client attrition driven by service disruption or cultural misalignment, Talent loss stemming from unclear expectations or compensation inequities, and Technology incompatibilities that impair efficiency and data integrity. Deficiencies inherited through acquisition can affect inspection outcomes, firm reputation, and overall audit quality long after the transaction closes. Integration: Where Value Is Created—or Lost Even when due diligence is performed thoughtfully, post acquisition integration remains the most common point of failure. Integration is often underestimated, treated as an operational exercise rather than a strategic initiative requiring sustained leadership attention. Successful integration goes far beyond combining systems or standardizing branding. It requires deliberate alignment across how the firm operates, governs itself, and delivers quality—particularly in areas such as: Audit methodology and documentation standards Quality management systems and monitoring processes Partner roles, authority, and accountability Talent development, evaluation, and retention Communication with clients, regulators, and staff Absent a structured integration plan, firms risk operating as a collection of semi independent practices rather than a cohesive organization. This fragmentation can undermine consistency, weaken accountability, and complicate regulatory compliance. A Strategic Imperative in a Changing Profession As consolidation continues and regulatory scrutiny intensifies, rigorous due diligence and disciplined integration are no longer optional. They are essential to managing risk, sustaining quality, and realizing the full value of a transaction. For accounting firm leaders, the message is clear: growth through acquisition can be a powerful strategy—but only when supported by a comprehensive understanding of what is being acquired and a deliberate plan for how the combined firm will operate as one. Firms that treat diligence and integration as leadership imperatives—rather than transactional steps—are better positioned to protect audit quality, retain talent, and preserve client trust while achieving growth objectives. JGA’s Role Guiding Firms through these Opportunities For firms seeking to grow through acquisition without sacrificing quality, control, or visibility, JGA is a solution. JGA is uniquely qualified with deep experience working with accounting firms on quality management, governance, and operational transformation. We have proven due-diligence tools built that are designed to be practical, adaptable, and immediately usable—while also supporting long term consistency as firms pursue multiple acquisitions over time. Ready to get started or need help refining your acquisition activities? Contact your JGA audit quality expert today to schedule a consultation and ensure acquisition activities are tailored to your firm’s needs.

JGA to Sponsor ALI's Accountants' Liability 2026 Conference

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

WASHINGTON, D.C.: — Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is proud to sponsor the ALI’s Accountants’ Liability 2026 conference hosted by the American Law Institute (ALI). The two‑day program will take place May 14–15, 2026, in Washington, D.C., with a live webcast option available for remote attendees. This annual conference is a premier forum for accounting firm leaders, in‑house counsel, litigators, and regulators to examine the evolving landscape of accountants’ liability, enforcement priorities, and risk management. The 2026 program will explore how recent regulatory, litigation, and technological developments are reshaping the profession and what firms can do to proactively respond. “We are pleased to once again sponsor the ALI Accountants’ Liability Conference,” said Jackson Johnson, President of Johnson Global Advisory. “This event consistently brings together leading regulators, practitioners, and risk professionals to discuss the most pressing liability and oversight issues facing accounting firms today. We value the opportunity to engage with participants and contribute to these important conversations.” The program will feature nationally recognized panels of practitioners, general counsel, industry professionals, and government officials. Planned discussions will address current and emerging challenges facing accounting firms, including: Regulatory and enforcement priorities impacting the accounting profession Recent trends in accounting‑related litigation PCAOB and SEC perspectives on audits, inspections, and gatekeeper liability The impact of AI, cryptocurrency, and emerging technologies on audit quality and firm risk Best practices for navigating an evolving and uncertain regulatory environment Register by April 13, 2026, to attend in-person and use the code “ JGA2026 ” to save $250 off . OR, for webcast attendance, use the code " JOHNSON " to save $125 off the tuition. Click here to register. To learn more about how Johnson Global partners with in-house and outside counsel to support public accounting firms, we invite you to explore our latest brochure. This resource outlines our approach to independent monitoring and consulting, including how we assist firms in navigating PCAOB and SEC investigations, implementing quality control improvements, and responding to regulatory findings. Download the brochure below to see how our experienced team can help your firm meet today’s compliance challenges and build a stronger foundation for the future. Get a copy of our brochure here . About Johnson Global Advisory Johnson Global partners with leadership of public accounting firms, driving change to achieve the highest level of audit quality. Led by former PCAOB and SEC staff, JGA professionals are passionate and practical in their support to firms in their audit quality journey. We accelerate the opportunities to improve quality through policies, practices, and controls throughout the firm. This innovative approach harnesses technology to transform audit quality. Our team is designed to maintain a close pulse on regulatory environments around the world and incorporates solutions which navigates those standards. JGA is committed to helping the profession in amplifying quality worldwide. Visit www.johnson-global.com to learn more about Johnson Global.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Present in AICPA & CIMA Quality Management Webcast Series

By Jackson Johnson • February 24, 2026

We’re pleased to share that Joe Lynch , JGA Shareholder, will be presenting in a series of AICPA & CIMA webcasts focused on practical considerations for Quality Management. These sessions are designed to provide guidance in your QM journey. They support key elements such as engagement quality reviews, root cause analysis, and ongoing monitoring and remediation. Register for Upcoming Sessions Session 1 — Quality Management: Engagement Quality Reviews What you’ll learn: Practical considerations for your firm's responsibilities for engagement quality reviews and the reviewers requirements when executing engagement quality reviews under the updated quality management standards, including how to make EQRs scalable and effective. Register for this session here . Session 2 — Quality Management: Performing a Root Cause Analysis What you’ll learn: How root cause analysis supports remediation by identifying underlying drivers of the findings and deficiencies; supporting the design of corrective actions that prevent recurrence. Register for this session here . Session 3 — Quality Management: My System is Set Up — Now What? What you’ll learn: Post-implementation requirements of SQMS No. 1, which include monitoring activities, evaluating findings and deficiencies, remediation, and the annual evaluation process—so your system stays responsive and effective. Register for this session here . These sessions are included with a current Webcast Pass. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®.

Joe Lynch, JGA Shareholder, to Provide Insights on Changes to Engagement Quality Review Requirements

By Jackson Johnson • January 20, 2026

JGA is pleased to announce that Joe Lynch , JGA Shareholder, will be a featured guest on the upcoming AICPA & CIMA A&A Focus live webcast on February 4, 2026. Joe has been invited to join the program to provide insights on changes to engagement quality review requirements. This appearance offers a valuable opportunity for viewers to gain practical, real-time guidance on effective EQR practices—an increasingly critical component of audit quality and compliance under the evolving professional standards landscape. Click here for m ore information about the program and registration details. At Johnson Global Advisory, we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. For more information, please contact your JGA audit quality expert .

Quality Management in 2026: Considerations to Successfully Adapt to a Transforming Environment

By Boyd O'Rourke • January 20, 2026

Introduction The accounting firm industry experienced a ground-breaking transaction in August of 2021 when TowerBrook acquired EisnerAmper, which marked the first private equity (“PE”) transaction of a large-scale accounting firm. This transaction was structured using an alternative practice structure (“APS”). Historically, licensing and independence rules have barred non-CPAs from owning accounting firms. Through an APS, a PE firm may invest in the non-attest entity with service lines such as tax advisory and consulting. The CPA partners retain control over the attest functions, which preserves regulatory compliance. While the APS model has been in existence since the 1990s, this August 2021 transaction brought new attention to this structure. What has followed is an extraordinary volume of deal activity. Per the CPA Trendlines (“CPAT”) Cornerstone report posted on November 18, 2025, CPAT has tracked over 115 PE-related transactions from 2020 to 2025, with over 80 transactions in 2025. While PE in the accounting firm space is no longer news, the pace and volume of transactions is certainly news-worthy. Impact of PE Investment The impact of PE investment on the accounting firm space is unprecedented. The APS has enabled PE to fuel billions of capital investment. PE-backed firms provide immediate payouts to partners at appealing valuations while providing access to capital to these firms for merger and acquisition growth, technology investments, and other priorities. Well-capitalized firms now have an improved ability to invest in technological capabilities, attract experienced talent to be more competitive for college graduates, and improve their market position. With new technologies, routine tasks are being automated such as data entry, tie-outs and controls testing, resulting in less time needed to perform certain audit procedures. What the regulators are saying At the AICPA December 2025 conference on Current SEC and PCAOB Developments, common topics were the presence of private equity in the accounting firm space and the opportunities and challenges that come with this investment. PCAOB Acting PCAOB Chair George Botic described that both transformative technologies (e.g., artificial intelligence or “AI”) and the continuing expansion of private equity investments in accounting firms are two developments that bring opportunities and challenges. Mr. Botic noted that while AI has enhanced risk assessment, reduced manual processes and made it possible to efficiently analyze entire populations of data (which can reduce the risk of missing irregularities or unusual patterns), that overreliance on AI may ultimately threaten auditors’ exercise of professional skepticism and judgment. As it relates to private equity, Mr. Botic noted that while these investments have the potential to enhance audit quality by increasing firm capacity and modernizing audit tools with advanced technologies, the presence of private equity presents a risk that firms shift incentives to prioritize profitability over audit quality. Mr. Botic stated, “Both AI and private equity investments in accounting firms carry the potential to truly reshape the profession. Yet these opportunities come with clear challenges to ensure that overreliance on AI and the pressures of private equity do not jeopardize audit quality.” SEC SEC Chair Atkins discussed in his remarks that he would like the PCAOB to modify its inspections process to place more reliance on the system of quality management and that inspection of certain engagements would inform the PCAOB if the firm’s system of quality management is effective. He also expressed a view that accountability for audit quality should move upward to firm leadership. How is a firm’s system of quality management (“SQM”) impacted? Today’s transforming environment has far-reaching impacts on a firm’s SQM. This publication will focus on risk assessment, governance and leadership, ethics and independence, resources, engagement performance, and monitoring and remediation.

Year in Review: Here are the Top 10 Actionable Insights of 2025

By Jackson Johnson • December 30, 2025

As we wrap up an incredible year, we’re showcasing the insights that sparked the most conversations and drove the most impact. Here are the Top 10 Actionable Insights from 2025: Use of Other Auditors: Managing Risk and the New PCAOB Standard ISQM 1, SQMS 1: Influencing the Firm on the Benefits Beyond Compliance (Part II) Case Study – Example Successor Auditor Considerations QC 1000 Implementation: Key Themes and Guidance from the PCAOB Workshop Clearing the Roadblocks: Auditing Estimates with Confidence in Small Firms Enhancing Auditor Independence: Key Themes from PCAOB Recent Spotlight The Never-Ending Story: How to Remediate Recurring EQR Findings – Part Deux Cryptic Audits of Crypto Assets: Auditing Digital Assets Innovative Solutions for QC 1000, SQMS 1, & ISQM 1: Quality Management tools in the Marketplace Enhancing Audit Evidence: PCAOB Expectations and What We Are Seeing in Practice

Enhancing Audit Evidence: PCAOB Expectations and What We Are Seeing in Practice

By Stephanie Mickens • November 24, 2025

As companies increasingly rely on cloud platforms, external data providers, and integrated third-party systems, the boundary between “internal” and “external” information has blurred. Audit evidence today may originate outside the company, but often arrives through the company, transformed, mapped, merged, or embedded within systems before it reaches the auditor. In response to this evolving landscape, the PCAOB amended AS 1105, Audit Evidence, effective for audits of fiscal years beginning on or after December 15, 2025. Central to these amendments is AS 1105.10A, which introduces a principle-based, risk-scalable framework for evaluating the reliability of electronic information provided by the company. At JGA, we view this development as a natural response to the data ecosystems shaping today’s financial reporting. We also see it rapidly becoming a recurring area of focus by global audit regulators, particularly when the information supports significant risks, revenue, fraud procedures, or management estimates. This article summarizes key themes from the PCAOB’s Board Policy Statement on Evaluating External Electronic Information (issued September 2025) paired with practical observations from JGA’s inspection support and methodology enhancement work with firms across the profession. Why External Electronic Information is a Growing Focus Area Across industries, external platforms now drive core financial and operational processes: payment processors, logistics platforms, third-party fulfillment solutions, subscription systems, industry data services, and more. Although such information originates from outside the company, it is often: Received, stored, or routed through company systems Transformed within spreadsheets or EUCs Merged with internally generated data Exported in formats that allow modification Provided to auditors without a traceable chain to the original source. Our direct experience working with our clients shows that PCAOB inspection teams consistently emphasize that external does not inherently mean reliable. The auditor must understand how the information was obtained, how it was handled, and whether there was a reasonable possibility that it could have been modified before reaching the auditor. Understanding AS 1105.10A The Board Policy Statement highlights two foundational expectations: 1. Auditors should understand the source and flow of the information. Inspection teams frequently question whether the engagement team understood: The true originating source of the data How the company received it (e.g., automated feed vs. manual upload) Whether the information is editable or configurable Whether it passed through multiple systems or spreadsheets How it is used in controls, substantive testing, or significant estimates In JGA’s experience, inspection findings often arise from situations where teams relied on a “system-generated” or “externally sourced” report without fully understanding where it came from or whether it could have been changed. 2. Auditors should address the risk of modification. The standard allows for two broad approaches, testing the information itself or relying on controls, depending on the assessed risk. The standard is intentionally flexible, but this flexibility requires well-supported judgments, especially for information affecting significant accounts or fraud risks. The PCAOB also acknowledged scenarios where separate testing may not be required (e.g., direct-to-auditor feeds or read-only API transfers) but emphasized that this exception applies only when the risk of modification is no more than remote. What We Observe in PCAOB Inspections Through JGA’s transformation activities with firms, we continue to see consistent challenges in the following areas: Reliance on information provided by the company without evaluating whether transformed, filtered, or merged with other data sets. Use of external or industry data in analytics without understanding the methods, assumptions, or relevance to the issuer. External information embedded in significant estimates or complex models without evaluating management’s process for compiling that information. System-generated or external journal entry listings used in fraud procedures without establishing completeness and reliability. In each of these situations, inspection teams focus on whether engagement teams understood how the information was obtained, how it was processed, and whether there was a reasonable possibility of modification before it reached the auditor. Emerging PCAOB Expectations Although the standard is principles-based, several expectations are now appearing consistently in inspections: Reliability cannot be presumed, external information must be evaluated just like any other audit evidence. Understanding the company’s process for receiving and handling external information is foundational. Judgments about whether separate testing is required must be risk-responsive and well-supported. Documentation should clearly articulate the source of the information, the company’s process, and the basis for concluding the information was reliable. These expectations are shaping how firms need to think about IPE testing, data flows, and the role of technology within the audit. Areas Where Firms Often Seek Assistance Across our methodology enhancement and inspection support work, firms consistently ask for help in: Identifying when information is “external electronic information provided by the company”. Determining whether reliance on management’s process is appropriate. Navigating situations where data passes through multiple systems or spreadsheets. Evaluating third-party or industry data used in analytics. Assessing effects on significant risks, especially revenue and fraud. Aligning documentation practices with PCAOB expectations. Many firms have strong processes for testing IPE, but other nuances of the standards require an additional layer of consideration that is still evolving in practice. Looking Ahead As companies build increasingly automated and interconnected systems, auditors must deepen their understanding of those environments to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence. Firms that proactively adapt their methodologies and train engagement teams will be better positioned for both compliance and audit quality. At JGA , we help firms interpret emerging regulatory requirements, strengthen methodologies, and enhance the use of technology and data in the audit. Ultimately, ensure compliance and consistency get to our ultimate goal of helping firms grow and scale responsibly. To learn how we can help your firm navigate these expectations and #AmplifyQuality, visit www.johnson-global.com, or contact a member of your JGA client service team.

JGA Welcomes Boyd O’Rourke as Managing Director

By Jackson Johnson • November 6, 2025

WASHINGTON, D.C. Johnson Global Advisory (JGA) is pleased to announce Boyd O’Rourke as a Managing Director, focused on helping audit firms meet their strategic objectives with audit quality in mind. With 30 years of experience in public accounting, Boyd has deep experience in firm management, strategy, risk management, and quality control. Boyd’s skillset complements JGA’s core services by adding new firm strategy and risk management service offerings. “ I have a passion for building high-functioning groups inside accounting firms,” said Boyd. “With private equity firmly in the accounting firm space, service line growth, acquisitions, and consolidation are happening at record speed. JGA’s goal is to help firms manage this growth while limiting exposure to regulatory and business risks. I am excited to advise firms navigating this most-critical period of their journey. ” Most recently, Boyd held multiple senior roles at CBIZ CPAs (formerly Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C.), including Executive Committee Member, National Practice Leader, Chief Risk and Quality Officer, National Director of Quality Control, Mid-west Regional Attest Practice Leader, and National Training Director. “ By most measures, Johnson Global Advisory is a small consulting firm—but over the past eight years, our impact on individual firms and the global profession as a whole has been vastly disproportionate to our size,” said Jackson Johnson, President and Founding Shareholder, JGA. “That is only possible because every professional that joins the JGA team brings deep senior-level experience, technical expertise, and a genuine ability to connect with our clients around the world. I am especially grateful that Boyd O’Rourke has chosen JGA as the platform to share his leadership and expertise to help firms grow and scale. Having known Boyd for several years, I’ve seen firsthand his commitment and executive approach to solving complex problems affecting public accounting firms. His decision to join us is a testament to the unique opportunities JGA offers—and to our shared mission of making a meaningful difference for our clients and the industry .” Boyd is based in the Kansas City area and received his Bachelor of Business Administration in Accounting from the University of Iowa. To learn more about Boyd and the full JGA team, read here . At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing solutions and tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®.

The Never-Ending Story: How to Remediate Recurring EQR Findings – Part Deux

By Geoff Dingle • October 28, 2025

In September 2022, we wrote an article discussing the struggle that firms were experiencing at that time in remediating Quality Control (QC) criticisms as it relates to their Engagement Quality Review (EQR) process. This struggle seemingly continues today, as, so far in 2025, the PCAOB has publicly re-released previously issued inspection reports for 32 registered firms, and in 19 of those reports, EQR was a QC criticism that was released to the public as these firms had failed to satisfactorily remediate their EQR QC criticism¹. This means that firms continue to struggle to identify and effectively implement remedial actions to the satisfaction of the PCAOB that demonstrate that they have successfully remediated their non-compliance with AS 1220, Engagement Quality Review . So why are firms still failing to remediate this QC criticism? As we stated previously, having worked with engagement teams and looking at the nuanced and sometimes detailed nature of some of the PCAOB Part I findings, attributing the audit issue to a deficient EQR review can sometimes feel like the regulator is being overly exigent. In fact, in its adopting release to the EQR standard , the Board stated that it “…has been sensitive to commenters' concerns and agrees that the EQR should not become, in effect, a second audit.” This is a difficult concept for EQRs to balance though, as engagement teams often ask us, “As EQR am I required to review every test of design and operating effectiveness for internal controls related to every significant risk? Which substantive workpapers in significant risk audit areas should I review and to what level of detail?” Though not explicitly required in AS 1220, implicitly by the very nature of the EQR attribution, the PCAOB is inherently creating an expectation of a detailed EQR review. After all, AS 1220.09 does require the EQR to “review documentation.” When the PCAOB evaluates a firm’s Rule 4009 remediation response, they pay particular attention to recurring deficiencies. If the same deficiency is long-standing or occurs in subsequent reports, remediation efforts undertaken must be incremental in each remediation submission so as to address the recurring deficiency. Said otherwise, a firm cannot deliver the same training year after year and expect it to drive change; it must change its approach to remediate the recurring deficiencies. We have numerous clients telling us that this is the second or third inspection report that includes an EQR QC criticism. They often ask us, “This time, what can we do that is incremental that we haven’t already done?” Remediation Considerations The new quality control standards (QC 1000, ISQM 1 and SQMS1) require firms to perform root cause analyses for audit deficiencies. In doing so, firms should identify the real root cause behind why EQRs are failing to identify audit deficiencies and then design specific remedial actions to address these root causes. So, remedial action should be in response to the actual root cause of the EQR deficiency – i.e., what is the ultimate root cause of EQR’s not identifying the Part I deficiencies at the time of their review? The following are typical actions that we see firms undertake: a. Training as an Action For many firms, they start out the remedial process by providing training to audit professionals that specifically address the requirements of AS 1220. Some firms attempt this by sourcing online training from the marketplace. If this is the first time your firm has received a Part II EQR criticism, then this action might be effective. However, training designed to remediate quality control deficiencies must be specific to the facts and circumstances of your issue(s). Oftentimes though, when the EQR criticism is long-standing or repetitive, training alone is not sufficient. Key takeaway : Consider developing more robust training that specifically addresses nuances of firm findings and walk through examples of EQR reviews. b. EQR Sign-off Checklist as an Action Another common remedial action is for firms to make enhancements to their methodology, including their EQR sign-off checklist . Most firms subscribe to audit software programs already which have a basic EQR checklist that calls out the requirements under AS 1220. Modification to the EQR checklist and/or creation of addendums that specifically focus on the issues or concerns can be a meaningful improvement and can add rigor to the review process. Key takeaway : Firms should determine whether they need to modify their EQR sign-off checklist and/or create addendums to include specific bullets and questions addressing firm audit deficiencies, specifically calling it out to the EQR’s attention. c. EQR mentoring/coaching program as an Action Many firms have already implemented the previous two actions, and they may continue to see deficiencies in the QC criticism. The PCAOB is expecting firms to do more to ensure quality audits. As we have worked with firms on remediation, we recommend firms consider an EQR mentoring/coaching program . When designed and implemented properly – and timely – we believe this action to be important to a successful remediation of QC deficiencies around the EQR function. Key takeaway : Consider designing and implementing an EQR coaching or mentoring program, paying close attention to key elements important for effective remediation criteria. Other Considerations Given that global audit regulators have raised the bar in expectations on recurring findings – specifically on the EQR process – we cannot stress enough the importance of beginning the remediation process early . Engage the PCAOB in a dialogue immediately once your 12-month remediation period begins, to discuss the planned remedial actions and get feedback on the sufficiency of those actions. Pay particular attention to understanding what is considered timely implementation. Do not underestimate the amount of time it will take to fully implement remedial actions. Key takeaway : Engage the PCAOB early in the remediation process to seek feedback on the sufficiency of the remedial actions (perhaps even before the final report has been issued). EQR as last line of defense Another important point is that EQRs are essentially the last line of defense with regard to audit quality. Said differently, audit quality starts with the audit engagement team and the firm’s entire QC system (training, methodology, tools, etc.) that enables and supports audit engagement teams to perform quality audits. Firms must also consider the remedial actions that also address the PCAOB’s Part I audit deficiency(ies). The EQR QC criticism, while linked to its own standard, is really just the review of the audit work performed under all the other audit standards (e.g., AS 2501, AS 1301, etc.). It is a collective effort, and the EQR as well as the entire engagement team should be considered when remediating all QC criticisms identified in firm inspection reports. It may feel like a never-ending story and perhaps regulators are being overly rigorous, but the reality is this issue is not going away, so firms need to consider what incremental actions they can take to truly ensure EQRs perform quality reviews. At Johnson Global Advisory , we support firms in selecting, implementing, and optimizing these tools to meet their unique needs. For more insights, visit our blog or contact us to learn how we can help your firm AmplifyQuality®. ¹ Part I of a PCAOB inspection report contains audit deficiencies; this part is made public when the report is initially published. Part II contains the firm’s QC criticism(s); and this part is not initially released to the public. The firm has one year from the date the report is published to remediate the QC criticism(s). If the remediation is satisfactory to the Board, then Part II is kept private. However, if the firm fails to satisfactorily remediate the QC criticism, the QC criticism in Part II is then released to the public.