Peer Review Guide

Apycom Java Applets
  Apycom Java Applets
 

Peer Review Guide > Common Deficiencies in Writing Peer Review Reports

Common Deficiencies in Writing Peer Review Reports

Common deficiencies include:

  • Language. Outdated report language is used.
  • Peer review year-ends. Inappropriate peer review year-ends are used. 2005 reviews should generally not have year-ends prior to 12/31/2004 unless prior arrangements have been made with the administering entity.
  • Peer review year-ends. Engagement review report year-ends do not cover the year-end dates of the financial statement selected for review.
  • Report dates. Incorrect report dates are used. The report date should be the date the matters were discussed and resolved with the firm. The date does not change if the report is subsequently revised as a result of a technical review or the Report Acceptance Body's consideration.
  • Deficiencies and recommendations. The deficiencies included in a report for a system review are not clear as to systemic nature of the modification.
  • Engagement reviews. The first and/or last paragraphs of an engagement review report are not tailored when the firm performs only compilation or only reviews.

Peer Review Guide > Common Deficiencies in Writing Peer Review Reports