A familiar review note can be more frustrating than a difficult technical question. You resolved it last month, the preparer made the correction, and the report went out. Now you’re asking for the same thing again, with another deadline approaching.
Fixing it yourself may be the quickest way to finish today’s job. The cost becomes harder to accept when you repeat the correction across several reporting cycles. On a fixed fee, you absorb the extra preparation and review time. On hourly work, you may end up writing down time you cannot reasonably bill.
A correction can settle the current file while leaving the next preparer with the same incomplete instructions. The reasoning may stay in an email exchange, or the reviewer may assume everyone will remember it. Reducing repeat work means carrying those decisions into the next job, including being clear about which ones apply beyond that client.
Find out why the same note returns
Review notes cover too much ground to serve as a simple measure of preparation quality. A question about an unfamiliar transaction, a change in the client’s request and a reconciliation error each require a different response. Staff learning a service will need more discussion than someone who has prepared the same work for years.
For a first pass, choose a few comparable jobs from one recurring service and look for comments you’ve made before. Three to five files should give you enough to discuss without creating a separate review project. Read the original instructions alongside the notes, then ask the preparer where they thought they had met the requirement.
That conversation helps distinguish an omitted check from an expectation you hadn’t explained. It can also expose conflicting instructions from different reviewers. Group the comments by cause rather than by the person who received them:
| Recurring issue | What is worth investigating | Possible response |
|---|---|---|
| Preparation error | Was the agreed check missed, misunderstood or difficult to complete in the time available? | Address the missed check or training need; adjust the work allocation if time pressure contributed. |
| Missing evidence | Did the preparer lack the information, or did the reviewer lack a clear reference to it? | Resolve the information gap or agree where supporting records belong. |
| Unclear instructions | Did the preparer and reviewer have different expectations of the finished work? | Agree the required detail and add a worked example. |
| Changed client request | Did the brief change after preparation began? | Record the extra work separately and agree the scope. |
| Technical question or staff learning | Does the work require judgement the preparer hasn’t yet developed? | Arrange discussion during preparation and retain the reasoning for future reference. |
A pattern across several people’s work is a reason to inspect the shared instructions. A pattern affecting one person may call for coaching. Neither conclusion follows from the count alone, and a new technical question deserves attention even if the file already has plenty of notes.
Missing client information may call for a broader look at how the month-end close is organised. Repeated requests for the owner’s approval may reveal a bottleneck in how responsibilities are delegated. Resolve those causes before adding preparation checks.
Agree the detail a reviewer needs
Consider a hypothetical bookkeeping team: Maya prepares a monthly report and Alex reviews it. Maya includes the figures and a comparison with the previous month. Alex sends it back asking for a short explanation of the main changes as well.
Maya adds the explanations, and the report goes out. But they never agree that this commentary should be part of every report. If they repeat the same exchange each month, Maya has to reopen work she thought was finished, and Alex has to request and review another version.
Before the next report, they need to agree which changes require an explanation and how much detail is useful. Maya can then include that commentary as part of preparing the report.
Where several people review work, they also need to agree on the requirement. If their expectations conflict, the engagement lead should settle them before the preparer is asked to make another correction.
Agree what “ready for review” means
For one recurring service, adapt this checklist together. Specify the detail needed under each heading so preparation and review use the same standard:
- Supporting information is complete for the work submitted, with source records referenced in the agreed place and missing items listed.
- Figures reconcile to the relevant records and agree across schedules and reports; unresolved differences are identified.
- Movements selected for investigation have explanations at the level agreed for the engagement.
- Assumptions, estimates and significant judgements include their basis, with earlier decisions checked for continued relevance.
- Open questions include the preparer’s findings and the decision or information they still need.
Agree when to raise questions during preparation, too. Anything that could change how the rest of the file is prepared needs discussion before formal review.
Make feedback useful on the next job
Under deadline pressure, editing the work yourself may be the quickest way to finish. Follow up on a recurring correction while the reasoning is still fresh: explain what needed changing and why, then discuss what would help your colleague handle it next time.
Alex can explain that the commentary helps assess whether the changes in the figures make sense. That gives Maya a basis for deciding what to include. If the requirement is already clear but someone struggles to apply it, work through an example together to identify where they need help. A longer checklist won’t necessarily address a gap in understanding or experience.
Keep client-specific decisions with the file, and put reusable guidance in the service template. Maya’s commentary belongs in the current report; the requirement she and Alex agreed belongs in the template she’ll use next month. A completed file can illustrate the approach, but colleagues shouldn’t have to search past corrections to discover what’s expected.
Keeping that guidance within existing workpapers fits ICAEW’s guidance for smaller firms, which calls for review procedures and records appropriate to the firm’s size.
A review-note log
For recurring issues, a short note in the existing workpaper or spreadsheet can record the cause, the agreed response and who will follow it through. Maya and Alex’s entry could look like this:
| Field | Example entry |
|---|---|
| Job | Monthly management report |
| Issue and cause | Alex asked Maya to add commentary. They hadn’t agreed it was required each month. |
| Reason | The commentary helps Alex assess whether the changes in the figures make sense. |
| Agreed change | Specify which changes need an explanation and add the requirement to the report template. |
| Owner | Alex updates the template after agreeing the requirement with Maya. |
| Did it recur? | Check whether the next report includes the commentary without another request. |
Use the log for issues you intend to follow up. There is no need to duplicate every review comment; technical questions can retain their supporting reasoning in the relevant workpapers.
Judge the change across the whole job
Compare the next few similar jobs with the files you started from. Has the same issue returned, and how much time went into preparation, review and correction overall? Read the hours alongside the review notes, allowing for differences in complexity and experience. MinuteDock’s Reports can show time by client and Task, so you can compare those activities across jobs.
A little more preparation is worthwhile if it prevents another round of corrections while preserving the review the work needs. If the same corrections continue, revisit their cause before adding more checks. For Maya and Alex, a useful improvement would be a report that includes the commentary Alex needs, without another request and resubmission. That is what the earlier correction should make possible.
