Figure 3: Developing Peer Review Communications for Observed Matters in Accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards

Tip: Click the figure to view a larger version in a new browser tab.

1. Peer reviewer observes a matter. (A circumstance that warrants further consideration by the peer review team)
2. Peer review team aggregates and systematically evaluates matters and documents evaluation.
3. Does evaluation of matters identify one or more findings? (More than a remote possibility that the reviewed audit organization would not perform, report, or both in conformity with professional standards)
   1. No - Report rating: Pass
4. Yes - Peer review team aggregates and systematically evaluates findings and documents evaluation.
5. Does evaluation of finding identify one or more deficiencies? (Findings that because of their nature, causes, pattern, or pervasiveness, including their relative importance to the audit organization’s system of quality management taken as a whole, could create a situation in which the audit organization would not have reasonable assurance of performing, reporting, or both in conformity with professional standards in one or more important respects)
   1. No - Report rating: Pass
6. Yes - Peer review team aggregates and systemically evaluates deficiencies and documents evaluation
7. Does evaluation of deficiencies identify one or more significant deficiencies? (Audit organization’s system of quality management does not provide reasonable assurance of performing, reporting, or both in conformity with professional standards)
   1. No - Report rating: Pass with deficiencies. Communicate deficiencies in the peer review report.
   2. Yes - Report rating: Fail. Communicate deficiencies and significant deficiencies in the peer review report