An audit finding that skips the criteria is just someone’s opinion. While stating the required standard, describing the finding, explaining the cause of the gap and the risk, and providing a recommendation, the report closing meeting should be a lot easier. Answer An audit finding that skips the criteria is just someone’s opinion. State what the standard required, what you found, why the gap exists and what it risks, and the recommendation more or less writes itself and survives the closing meeting.
We prepare audit reports after the fieldwork has been completed. Your auditors will perform the tests and exercises of their own judgment and/or discretion. Our job is to draft a report that is consistent from the first to the last page of the report.
Audit recommendations are acted upon if the associated tasks define a definitive endpoint. One recommendation that is completely void of a close date is to “Improve controls over supplier onboarding.” On the other hand, the task assigned to “Require dual approval for new suppliers above a set threshold, owned by finance, in place by March,” has a definitive endpoint.
Generated audit findings cannot be closed. They describe a general weakness, recommend strengthening the weakness, and do not provide a threshold, owner or date. During the follow-up audit, no one is able to say whether the finding was addressed, so the same finding is carried over for three years.
The writer uses the working papers and the risk ratings your team assigned. Findings are drawn in a particular format, so if another team member were to review three of them, they would be comparing similar things. The wording is also verified against the criteria rather than what you remember.
Working papers are often lengthy and redundant, but that is not the case with this report. Report sections will include a summary of the test detail. If a reader wishes to see the detail, they can refer to the appendix. The report will include the opinion and the summary of the audit committee’s decisions at the forefront of the report.
One rate, whatever the format: $10 per 100 words. You are paying for the writer’s time and judgement, so the price scales with the words rather than with a package tier.
| Typical audit report | Words | Writing | Fee (1%) | You pay |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Summary report | 1,200 | $120 | $1.20 | $121.20 |
| Standard report | 3,000 | $300 | $3 | $303 |
| In-depth report | 6,000 | $600 | $6 | $606 |
The writer receives 100% of the writing price. Our 1% fee is added on top of it, and 0.5% is donated to tree planting. Full pricing breakdown.
As detailed as the brief and the word count allow. Because you pay by the word rather than by tier, depth is a decision you make rather than a package you upgrade to. Tell the writer what the reader already knows and they will pitch it there.
Yes. Send the template, a previous example, or the structure you are required to use, and the writer works inside it. If a required section does not fit the material honestly, they will flag it rather than pad it out.
No. Testing, sampling, and professional judgment all remain with an audit team or external firm. We take the working papers and ratings and draft the report, where most mistakes are made and where consistency is of utmost importance. This is also where audit teams tend to waste the most time.
Yes, and it is often a reason why our services are used. Having a single author in the program means that findings of the same severity are expressed in the same way, in which case a committee reviewing four reports is evaluating findings, as opposed to the quality of the writing.
Completely. Copyright transfers to you on delivery, with no attribution requirement and no licence back to us. Nothing written for you is resold, repurposed or republished.
Reviews from completed, paid orders in this category.
We submitted our paper and a spreadsheet. Our writer said our sample size was too small. We modified the claim. It’s a slightly bruised ego, but better paper and nobody has criticized it in public yet.
The chair’s introduction and year-in-review section surpass all our internal drafts. Where it missed the mark: the writer did not draft when the finance numbers were pending. That resulted in a tight deadline for the final week. Other writers suggest using placeholder text to fill gaps.
Typically, the risk register that accompanies the feasibility study has generic entries. Ours had six risk items, each of which was linked to something in the documentation I provided, with one of them being something I had not even thought of.
We do not ask you to take the no-AI promise on trust. Each draft is run through these platforms and the reports are attached to your delivery email.
Originality.aiAI detection + plagiarism
GPTZeroAI detection
TurnitinAI detection + similarity
CopyleaksAI detection + plagiarism
Winston AIAI detection
ZeroGPTAI detection
SaplingAI detection
Content at ScaleAI detection
Send the brief, get a human draft back within 3 days. No account, no subscription, no AI.
$10 per 100 words · all of it to the writer · 0.5% to trees