Break a group audit plan into entity, process and assertion tests
For: Head of internal audit or group audit senior manager planning the annual audit
The pain today
A group audit spans many entities, each with its own processes, ledgers and prior findings. The plan is copied from last year, risk is assessed at group level, and test work is spread evenly instead of where the documents show risk.
The ask
“I attached last year's audit plan and findings, the entity list with financials, process descriptions and the risk register. Break the audit into entities, processes and assertions, propose the tests for each from what these documents show, and tell me what you based each risk rating on.”
Plain words, as you would say it to a colleague. Edit it to fit your case before you send it.
What you attach or connect
- Prior audit plan, working papers and findings
- Entity list with trial balances
- Process and control descriptions per entity
- Risk register and incident log
- Audit methodology and materiality approach
The unit of work
One worker task per one assertion test for one process in one entity.
Why a swarm fits
The plan is a tree: group, entity, process, assertion, test. Each leaf needs only that entity's process notes and balances, leaves are independent, and a level is reviewed before it shapes the one above.
Not for
A single-entity audit with a stable programme: an experienced senior updates it faster than a run can be reviewed.
The decision tree
6 typed decisions, each with an action for every answer
At fixed moments in a run, the engine puts one narrow question to a decision model. The decision model never writes text: it answers yes or no with a probability, picks from listed options, or gives a score, about a small slice of the material. The engine then does exactly what this tree says, which is what makes the run auditable. The thresholds are the template's design values, not measured results.
Planner, while planning
Split or keep serialYes or no, with a probability
While planning
Does any line item of this entity exceed the scoping level set by the methodology, so that it needs its own programme?
Sees only: Entity totals by line item against the scoping figure computed in code
Why: Test work goes where the balances are, not evenly.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenSplit the work
- Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenKeep serial
- No: below 0.40thenKeep serial
Split or keep serialYes or no, with a probability
While planning
Is this process run by a different team or system from the one already planned for another entity?
Sees only: The process note's system and team lines for both entities
Why: Shared-service processes are tested once, not per entity.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenSplit the work
- Unsure: 0.40 up to 0.60thenKeep serial
- No: below 0.40thenKeep serial
After workers, the judge checks
Evidence checkYes or no, with a probability
After a worker answers
Does the cited prior finding or incident relate to this assertion in this process, such as cut-off in revenue, and not to the entity in general?
Sees only: The risk rationale and the quoted finding or incident
Why: A risk rating must rest on something a reviewer can open.
- Yes: 0.85 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.50 up to 0.85thenEscalate to a strong model
- No: below 0.50thenReject and retry
Reconciler, while merging
Conflict checkYes or no, with a probability
While reconciling
Is there an open prior finding for this process that none of the proposed tests addresses?
Sees only: The open findings for the process and the proposed test steps
Why: An ignored prior finding is what audit committees ask about.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenReject and retry
- Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenMark unresolved
- No: below 0.30thenAccept
Run control, between rounds
Retry or stopYes or no, with a probability
After a rejection or low confidence
Do the process notes say how transactions are initiated, approved and recorded, so that risk can be rated from them?
Sees only: The process note for one entity and process
Why: Thin documentation is reported, not papered over with a guess.
- Yes: 0.60 or higherthenAccept
- Unsure: 0.30 up to 0.60thenMark unresolved
- No: below 0.30thenMark unresolved
Accountable person, before anything is settled
Person decidesYes or no, with a probability
Before anything is reported as settled
Does this leaf change the scope, the materiality applied or a risk rating compared with last year's plan?
Sees only: The leaf and last year's plan line
Why: The head of audit owns scope, materiality and risk assessment.
Accountable: The head of audit owns risk assessment, scope and materiality; the swarm drafts and the audit team signs the plan.
- Yes: 0.40 or higherthenAsk a person
- Unsure: 0.15 up to 0.40thenAsk a person
- No: below 0.15thenAccept
The fleet: who does what
Model tiers by role, not brands: you choose the models. Strong reasoning models plan and reconcile, small fast models do the wide work, and the judge is a decision model from a different family, so it does not share the workers' blind spots.
Planner
A strong reasoning model builds the tree from group to assertion and applies the methodology's scoping rules at each level.
Decisions here:1. Split or keep serial2. Split or keep serial
Workers
Small fast workers from an open-weight family draft the risk rationale and test steps for one leaf from its documents.
Designed for 20 to 1,000 agents, one worker task per one assertion test for one process in one entity. Each worker receives only its own unit.
Judge, from a different model family
A decision model from a different family checks that each risk rationale is supported by the cited balance, finding or incident.
Decisions here:3. Evidence check
Reconciler
A strong reasoning model rolls leaves up into entity programmes and removes duplicated tests across entities on shared systems.
Decisions here:4. Conflict check5. Retry or stop
Accountable person
The head of audit owns risk assessment, scope and materiality; the swarm drafts and the audit team signs the plan.
Decisions here:6. Person decides
Checked before anything is accepted
- Every risk rating cites the document and figure it rests on
- Scoping arithmetic against materiality is recomputed in code
- Open prior findings must map to a test or a stated reason for none
- Each level is verified before it rolls up to the entity and group plan
What comes back
- Audit programme per entity and process with test steps
- Risk rationale per assertion with sources
- Prior findings and how the plan addresses each
- Areas where documents were too thin to rate risk
What to measure
- Planned tests the audit team keeps without rework
- Findings arising in areas the plan rated low
- Planning hours per entity
Names of measures only. No result is claimed for this template.
Templates open in the workspace chat with the ask filled in. Nothing runs until you send it.
Get early accessSign in to useMore in Finance and audit
Reconcile intercompany agreements with the transfer pricing policy
For: Group tax manager or group controller preparing transfer pricing documentation
Markups, payment terms and service scopes are set in the transfer pricing policy, restated in intercompany agreements and changed in addenda.
Extract lease accounting inputs where the wording needs judgement
For: Group accountant or lease accounting lead maintaining the lease register
Lease term, extension and termination options, indexation and incentives sit in contracts and amendments in several languages.
Watch loan covenants and reporting duties against monthly figures
For: Group treasurer or financial controller of a company with several debt facilities
Covenant definitions differ between facilities: what counts as debt, which adjustments are allowed, when certificates are due.