What should I check and document before submitting an AI-generated working paper under my own name?
In Brief
Work involving AI still requires a clear review objective, a defined set of source material, and checks of important facts and judgements against the originals. Unresolved issues should remain visible, and the work performed and basis for conclusions should be understandable to the next reviewer. Teams need to plan time for that review and learning.
An AI-generated working paper draft arrives. It follows the required format and includes a conclusion. What do I need to do before submitting it under my own name?
Earlier articles considered the judgements accountants contribute, the experience new associates need and the way teams allocate time. This final article follows the sequence of an actual assignment: deciding what work to give AI, checking the result and passing it to the next reviewer.
1. Work objectives and source material
Summarising the main clauses of a contract and preparing a draft analysis of its accounting treatment require different information and review, even when they concern the same document. Before making a request to AI, establish what the output is intended to help you assess.
For a review of obligations under funding shortfall agreements, the scope could be to identify the obligated party, triggering conditions, funding limit and termination date in each agreement. Ask AI to mark anything it cannot establish from the material as unconfirmed. That makes it easier to identify what needs further attention when the result arrives.
Define the source material as well. Check whether all amendments and supplementary agreements have been included alongside the main contract. If documents have not yet been received, recognise that they are outside the current analysis.
Common Pitfall
Client information must be used only with tools and for purposes permitted by the firm. Access through an internal system does not, by itself, permit every document to be uploaded. First check that the proposed use of the material complies with the firm’s policies.
IESBA’s technology-related revisions to the Code also address confidentiality and professional competence and due care when using technology. In practice, the applicable requirements in the jurisdiction and the firm’s own policies need to be considered together. IESBA, Technology-related Revisions to the Code
2. Source checks and supporting evidence
Contract terms summarised by AI should match the original clauses, and explanations of accounting standards should be verifiable in the standards themselves. An Excel result needs to be traced through the source data and calculation structure. The task is to establish where the words or numbers came from.
Suppose a meeting agrees to revisit a conclusion after receiving further information, but AI records that the review of the issue is complete. The wording must be corrected to reflect what remains unconfirmed. Reports and presentations also need a check that simplifying the language has not turned an unresolved matter into an established fact.
Set the extent of review according to the purpose and risks of the work. The UK FRC’s Generative and Agentic AI Guidance explains the need to assess output for accuracy, completeness, fitness for purpose and consistency with the reviewer’s understanding of the entity. The nature and extent of review depend on professional judgement, taking into account factors such as the risk remaining after other controls. FRC, Generative and Agentic AI Guidance, p. 37
Check the evidence even when AI’s conclusion matches your own. A familiar conclusion can make it easier to overlook whether the same conditions apply to this transaction.
3. Unresolved issues and further review
If information is missing or the company’s explanation conflicts with the documents, decide what else needs to be checked. Until that work is complete, make clear which judgements remain outstanding.
The following hypothetical examples show possible responses to problems identified during review.
| Problem Identified | Next steps |
|---|---|
| A paragraph cited by AI cannot be found in the official standard. | Set aside any conclusion that depends on that citation. Establish the applicable standard and requirements, then reconsider the analysis. |
| A prior working paper refers to an agreement in addition to the contracts received. | Obtain the agreement and check whether it remains in force. Until it is received, record that its effect on the conclusion has not yet been assessed. |
| AI states that a matter was confirmed with a company representative, but the procedure was never performed. | Remove the statement. Decide whether the confirmation is needed and, if so, actually perform it before documenting the findings and evidence. |
If a significant interpretation of a standard or conflicting evidence is difficult to resolve alone, discuss it with the in-charge or an appropriate reviewer. Provide the material already checked, the points on which judgement differs and the additional information needed so that the review can continue.
New associates also need to make clear what they do not know in order to get useful help. Filling gaps with AI-generated sentences before submission makes it difficult for the reviewer to tell what has actually been checked.
4. Documentation and review handover
Consider whether the person receiving the working paper can distinguish between the work you have performed and the issues still open. Even a draft for review should identify the material used and the checks completed. Unconfirmed matters placed among finished sentences may be read as established facts.
Example
A handover of a contract review could include the following progress note:
The amounts and contract periods in the main contract and amendment have been checked against the original documents. A separate agreement mentioned in the prior audit working papers has not yet been received and has been requested from the company. As it may affect the terms of the funding shortfall obligation, the related conclusion has not been finalised.
This is a hypothetical example of how to describe review progress.
This record tells the next reviewer what material is awaited and what still needs attention. Once the documents are obtained and the issue is resolved, reflect the findings and basis for the conclusion in the final working paper.
Within the team, agree who will investigate the remaining issues and when they will be reviewed again. The preparer records the work performed, the in-charge reviews significant judgements and the direction of further work, and more senior reviewers assess whether key issues have been resolved on sufficient evidence.
If the in-charge changes a conclusion directly, they can explain which facts prompted the change. Asking the preparer to restate the reasoning in their own words helps turn completion of the current working paper into experience they can use on the next assignment.
5. Time for review and learning
If the preparer is responsible for necessary checks, the work plan needs to include time for them. Setting only a draft submission date makes it easier for further review and learning to be pushed aside as the deadline approaches.
When assigning a contract review, the team can also agree when to discuss missing material and significant judgements. Give the associate clauses to check personally, and have the in-charge listen to how they understood them. For an outstanding agreement, identify who will request it and when progress will be checked.
When assigning additional work, consider the time needed to obtain information and perform the review. If more issues emerge than expected, the preparer should raise them, and the team should be able to adjust the review timetable or work allocation.
After completion, use differences from the original expectations to inform the next plan. The first draft may have been quick, but obtaining an agreement may have taken time, or understanding a particular condition may have required more explanation. Accumulating this experience helps distinguish realistically between the time AI saves and the time the work continues to need.
This series began with a question about how much of the accountant’s work AI will take over. We will need to keep watching as tools perform more tasks and staffing structures change.
The standard I want to uphold in my own work is clear. If I submit a working paper under my name, I should be able to explain what facts I checked and why I accepted the conclusion. Teams need to provide time for accountants to develop and review those judgements.
AI helps us finish documents faster. Through to the final conclusion, I want to understand what the document says about this company and this transaction.
Key Takeaways
- Define the task’s purpose, the source material and the permitted working environment before using AI.
- Check important facts and judgements against the evidence, and keep unconfirmed matters visible until they are resolved.
- Document the work so the next reviewer can understand what was performed and the basis for the conclusion.
- Include review and learning time in the work plan, and use actual time spent to inform the next allocation of work.
References
- International Ethics Standards Board for Accountants (IESBA), Final Pronouncement: Technology-related Revisions to the Code, April 11, 2023; updated May 30, 2023.
- Financial Reporting Council (FRC), Generative and Agentic AI Guidance, March 2026, p. 37.
- Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), AS 1215 – Audit Documentation, paragraphs .06–.06A and .08.