AttestWork demo tour · Part 5 of 6
Planning like a partner - with the presumptions wired in.
Materiality computes from the mapped statements with every threshold documented. Risk assessment works at the assertion level with the profession's defaults built in - and what you conclude there doesn't sit in a workpaper: it flows straight into the sampling engine that sizes and selects your fieldwork tests.
Illustrative engagement: Hudson & Vale CPAs, LLP (Albany, NY) auditing Riverbend Community Services, Inc. (Rochester, NY) - a NYS-funded nonprofit, GAAS audit, FYE December 31, 2025, with a NYS CFRDec25 Examination add-on. Fictional firm, client, and data.
Planning · Internal control
From questionnaire answers to the walkthrough matrix
The Entity & Environment questionnaire and the per-cycle process walkthroughs your client completes in the PBC portal - together with your team's own inquiry notes - don't just sit in a folder. The bot turns them into the AU-C 315 walkthrough matrix: cycle by cycle, control objectives, risks if controls fail, evidence walked through, and a drafted deficiency classification for your conclusion.
Procedure 2 Perform walkthroughs for significant transaction cycles P7.2 Reviewed
Planning section P7 - Internal Control · AU-C 315 · Required
The walkthrough matrix documents the engagement team's understanding of the design and implementation of Riverbend's significant transaction cycles under AU-C 315. No controls reliance is planned for the 2025 audit: processes are small-team and management-led, with limited segregation of duties.
| Process / Cycle | Control objectives | Key control activities (D&I) | Primary risks if control fails | Assertions | Walkthrough / evidence obtained | W/P ref | Auditor conclusion | Deficiency classification |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contributions, grants & cash receipts | Record program and contract revenue only for valid awards, in the proper amount and period; deposit receipts completely. | Billing follows OPWDD/OMH rate letters and service documentation; the ED reviews monthly billing summaries; deposits are logged against remittance advices. | Premature or omitted revenue; units billed without service documentation; receipts not deposited; management override. | C, E/O, A, CO, P | Traced selected remittances from rate letter through billing, deposit, and posting - per the client's Contributions & Grants walkthrough questionnaire and inquiry with the ED. | F12, F1 | Design and implementation understood. No controls reliance planned; control risk assessed high; substantive vouching, cutoff, and confirmation remain the response. | N/A - no reliance planned; control risk assessed high. |
| Purchases, AP & disbursements | Authorize purchases and disbursements; record expenses in the proper account and period; identify unrecorded liabilities. | No formal purchase-order system; vendor invoices and bank/card records serve as authorization and recording support; ED approves payments. | Unauthorized or duplicate payments; expense cutoff errors; omitted liabilities. | E/O, C, A, CO, P | Walked through selected vendor payments from invoice to approval, bank activity, and posting - per the Purchases & Expenses questionnaire responses. | F7, F13 | Design and implementation understood. Control risk high; substantive expense, cutoff, and search-for-unrecorded-liabilities procedures remain the response. | Control deficiency consideration - no formal PO workflow and limited segregation. |
| Payroll | Pay bona fide employees at approved rates; record payroll and related liabilities in the proper period. | Third-party payroll processing; ED reviews payroll submissions; payroll reports reconcile to the GL. | Payments to unauthorized employees; rate or classification errors; incomplete accruals. | E/O, A, C, CO, P | Walked through payroll-provider reports to approval and GL posting - per the Payroll Cycle questionnaire and inquiry with the bookkeeper. | F11 | Design and implementation understood. Provider reports give source support; payroll controls informal and not tested; control risk high. | N/A - no reliance planned; control risk assessed high. |
Bot-suggested follow-up - awaiting your approval
The Cash Receipts questionnaire says deposits are made “weekly, by whoever is available.” Suggested inquiry for Jordan Ellis: who has custody of receipts between collection and deposit, and is the deposit log reviewed by someone other than the preparer? Drafted in the PBC thread for your review.
The bot does the heavy lifting
- Converts the client's questionnaire answers and your inquiry notes into the walkthrough matrix - objectives, risks, assertions, and evidence, with W/P references tied to the fieldwork areas.
- Drafts the deficiency-classification column and the overall assessment for your conclusion.
- Flags thin or inconsistent questionnaire answers and drafts the follow-up inquiries to close them.
You stay in control
- The walkthroughs are performed by your team, with your client - the bot documents what you observed, it doesn't observe for you.
- Controls reliance, control-risk assessment, and deficiency classification are the auditor's documented conclusions.
- Follow-up inquiries reach the client only after you approve them.
Materiality
A computed workpaper, not a guess
Statements Benchmark Comparison
| Basis | 2025 | 2024 | % change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total Revenue (34 accounts) | $1,214,516 | $1,148,209 | 5.8% |
| Total Expenses · SELECTED | $1,173,400 | $1,121,050 | 4.7% |
| Total Assets | $668,730 | $524,981 | 27.4% |
| Net Assets / Equity | $214,806 | $173,690 | 23.7% |
Suggested starting basis: Total Expenses - the most stable benchmark for not-for-profit entities. Risk profile: H 0 › M 0 › L 6 › Bucket 1 › 3%.
Overall materiality
$35,200
Total Expenses $1,173,400 × 3.0%
Performance
$26,400
Tolerable
$26,400
Clearly trivial
$1,760
The bot does the heavy lifting
- Proposes the benchmark from entity type and mapped statements, computes OM / PM / TM / clearly trivial, and documents the rationale.
- Preliminary materiality is set at planning on unadjusted balances. As the audit progresses, the bot may suggest revising it on adjusted amounts - and only updates, with documented rationale, if your auditor approves. It never auto-updates when adjustments post.
- Drafts the materiality workpaper with the risk-bucket matrix visible.
You stay in control
- Your auditor picks the basis and percentages - the matrix suggests, judgement decides.
- Materiality for particular items stays a human call.
- The workpaper carries preparer and reviewer stamps like everything else.
Risk assessment
Assertion-level rows with the AU-C 240 presumption on
AUDIT AREA · F12 - Contributions & Grants
Amount: $896,676.35Balance present5/5 rows documentedOverall RMM: HIGH☑ Significant RiskRMA6-1PREPAREDAR07/16/26REVIEWEDDO07/17/26| Assertion | What could go wrong? | Materiality (with rationale) | Significant risk (yes/no, rationale) | Fraud risk (yes/no, rationale) | Inherent risk (with rationale) | Control risk | RMM (with rationale) | Audit program | IC cycle / reliance | Summary of audit plan |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Occurrence | Contract and grant revenue recognized for services not delivered, periods not earned, or units not documented. | Material - $896,676 is 74% of total revenue, far above OM of $35,200 and PM/TM of $26,400. | Yes - revenue recognition is presumed a significant fraud risk under AU-C 240; presumption not rebutted. | Yes - presumed fraud risk in revenue recognition (AU-C 240); billing depends on service-unit documentation. | HIGH - rate-based OPWDD/OMH billing with retroactive rate adjustments and unit documentation requirements. | HIGH (controls not tested; CR set high) | HIGH | Further | No | Vouch remittances to contracts and service documentation; test cutoff both directions around 12/31; confirm significant awards. |
| Completeness | County or program revenue received but not recorded, or awards earned and unbilled at year-end. | Material - affects revenue and net asset classes at the statement level. | No - completeness is addressed by a fully substantive approach; not near the upper end of inherent risk. | No specific factor beyond management override. | MODERATE - multiple funding streams raise the risk that a source is omitted. | HIGH (controls not tested; CR set high) | MODERATE | Further | No | Reconcile award letters and county contracts to recorded revenue; review subsequent receipts and unbilled units. |
| Accuracy | Revenue recorded at wrong rates - retroactive OPWDD rate adjustments misapplied. | Material - rate variances can exceed TM of $26,400 across the year. | No - accuracy risk is concentrated in rate application and is testable directly. | No specific fraud factor beyond management override. | MODERATE - published rates change mid-year and retro adjustments arrive after year-end. | HIGH (controls not tested; CR set high) | MODERATE | Further | No | Recompute a sample of billings at published rates; agree retro adjustments to state notices. |
| Cutoff | December services billed and recorded in the wrong period. | Material in combination - December billings approximate $75,000, above TM. | No - cutoff is covered within the occurrence significant-risk response. | Linked to the occurrence presumption - period-end recognition is where the presumed risk concentrates. | MODERATE - routine monthly billing cycle with a January remittance lag. | HIGH (controls not tested; CR set high) | MODERATE | Further | No | Test last billings of December and first of January to service dates; review January remittances. |
| Classification / Presentation | Conditional contributions, exchange revenue, and donor restrictions presented incorrectly (ASC 958-605). | Material - misclassification moves amounts between with/without donor restriction columns. | No - presentation risk is judgmental but addressed through disclosure review. | No fraud factor for presentation. | MODERATE - grant agreements mix conditions, restrictions, and exchange elements. | HIGH (controls not tested; CR set high) | MODERATE | Basic | No | Read significant agreements for conditions/restrictions; agree net-asset rollforward and Note disclosures to support. |
Sampling
Risk assessment drives the sampling engine
Every fieldwork area carries a Sampling tab, and its inputs aren't typed in - they flow. The area's amount, overall RMM, and significant-risk flag come from Risk Assessment; tolerable misstatement comes from Materiality. The bot fills in what's left by reading the general ledger and the population listing, then selects the sample.
Fieldwork sampling engine · F12 - Contributions & Grants
Calculate sample size and document the sample-selection plan for this audit area.
1. Overall RMM
HIGH
← from Risk Assessment2. Significant risk
Yes
← from Risk Assessment3. Assurance
Persuasive ▾
auditor's choice4. TM amount
$26,400.00
← from Materiality5. Total population amount
$896,676.35
← from R&M area amount6. Target/key items amount
$412,806.00
bot: 6 major OPWDD remittances7. Total population count
214
bot: counted from the GL8. Target/key items count
6
bot-selected, user-editable| 9. Remaining amount | 10. Coverage | 11. Base sample | 12. Required items | 13. Approach |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $483,870.35 | 46.0% | 18.3 | 25 | Sampling |
How the values are populated: Overall RMM and Significant Risk are auto-sourced from this area's R&M rows - higher risk raises required items. TM comes from Materiality and acts as tolerable error. The bot proposes target/key items from the GL and population listing, computes base sample (remaining ÷ TM), and selects the required items haphazardly from the remainder. If required items reach the remaining count, the approach flips to 100% testing.
The bot does the heavy lifting
- Reads the general ledger and the population listing you provide - plus evidence already in the file - to propose key items, counts, and amounts.
- Runs the selection and documents the plan: inputs, formula trail, and the selected items land in the Sampling record and Procedure Results.
- Drafts the client request for the selected items - as an email draft, or straight into the PBC portal with a drafted comment.
You stay in control
- You review the plan - revise any input manually or tell the bot what to change, and the engine recomputes.
- You approve the selection request before it reaches the client, in email or in the portal.
- Saving the sampling plan locks the fieldwork area before sign-off - the selection can't drift after review.
PBC #21 · Revenue - sample support · Draft comment awaiting approval
Once you approve and post, the portal emails the client automatically - and when the client uploads or replies, your team is notified the same way. No separate follow-up thread to babysit.
Analytics
Expectations first, findings second
Flux and ratio analysis run from the same mapped statements, so every analytical conclusion ties to the statement structure - and every finding answers a written expectation.
| Line item | 2025 | 2024 | % Δ | Expectation | Finding |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F1 Cash | $310,493 | $128,406 | +141.8% | Cash expected to move with contract collections and timing of year-end disbursements. | Increase driven by December OPWDD advances; addressed through bank support, reconciliation review, and cutoff in F1. |
| F10 Leases | $158,032 | $0 | - | Lease balances expected to be nil unless obligations were recognized during the year. | First-year ASC 842 adoption; right-of-use asset and lease liability recognized via AJE-2025-001/002. Significant planning area in F10. |
| F12 Contributions & Grants | $896,676 | $842,120 | +6.5% | Program revenue expected to track contract renewals. | Material and presumed fraud risk; F12 remains a significant risk area. |
▶ Watch: walkthroughs, materiality, risk, and sampling in one pass
Screens on this page are illustrative: Hudson & Vale CPAs and Riverbend Community Services, Inc. are fictional.