An engagement supervisor notes that an internal auditor usually documents and submits draft audit reports for review without giving the process owners the opportunity to state their position on the…

Question

Options

• AEncourage the auditor to continue this practice, as it demonstrates objectivity.
• BEncourage the auditor to improve communication skills.
• CEncourage the auditor to conduct post-engagement surveys to obtain the audit client's position on
• DEncourage the auditor to sign the draft reports before submitting them.

• A
  3% (1)
• B
  78% (31)
• C
  15% (6)
• D
  5% (2)

Explanation

Option B is correct because IIA Standards require internal auditors to communicate findings with process owners before submitting draft reports, giving auditees the opportunity to agree, disagree, or clarify - this is a fundamental communication step, not an optional courtesy. Skipping this step is a professional deficiency in communication practice, not a sign of strength.

Option A is wrong because objectivity means freedom from bias, not avoidance of stakeholder input - bypassing process owners actually risks inaccurate reports since facts may be incomplete or misinterpreted.

Option C is wrong because post-engagement surveys measure client satisfaction after the audit closes; they cannot substitute for obtaining management's position on findings before the report is finalized.

Option D is wrong because signing a draft report is irrelevant to the core problem - it doesn't address the missing process-owner input and has no bearing on the procedural gap identified.

Memory tip: Think of the audit report process as a "draft → discuss → finalize" flow. If the auditor jumps from "draft" straight to "submit," they've skipped the discuss step - which is a communication failure, not an objectivity win.

No community discussion yet for this question.