Internal audits findings 1803

  • Hi all,
    We haven been given a red report by our Internal Audits on their process documents review. Most of the findings are related to cosmetics errors. I am having difficulty how to make them understand that if there isn’t any design or operational deficiencies on all significant controls that they give the business a green report instead of red. Could you be able to helping me find a way in how to agree with IA?

  • Clean up the cosmetic errors…

  • Clean up the cosmetic errors…
    Any other comments?

  • I asked KPMG a few weeks ago what happens if there is not evidence of review for a report ( e.g sign off and approval of final version by mangement) but the information is actually correct and there is therefore no inpact on the financial statements. -Essentially a cosmetic error.
    They informed me that the reason why it is still considered a deficiency is becuase it indicates that Management may not be taking is issue of SOX seriously, which could have an impact on their opinion of the ‘tone at the Top’ .
    this is why it is a good idea to clean up the cosmetic errors.

  • I didn’t interpret ‘cosmetic errors’ to include lack of evidence of review (signature). I interpreted it to mean clean, consistent documentation, free of spelling or grammar errors with all related documents properly tying together and easy to follow. Under this interpretation, I would argue that it still should be cleaned up as sloppy documentation implies sloppy attention to detail which could be interpreted that the company was not taking this seriously.
    Lack of evidence of review is more than a cosmetic error. It implies that the control (management review) was not executed and therefore a deficiency.
    Maybe Ben911 can elaborate a little bit more on what he means by cosmetic.

Log in to reply