Follow-up on audit

Two dates, one judgement

The auditee’s committed date and the auditor’s follow-up date are two different facts, and the register keeps them apart. The first is what the auditee promised in answer to the recommendation; the second is when the auditor will check. When the committed date passes the work paper is marked overdue; when the follow-up date passes it is marked due. Two marks, two meanings, and neither changes the follow-up state. The judgement sits elsewhere. When the remediation owner answers the evidence request, the auditor opens the work paper in the workbench, reads the new evidence against the control criterion, corrects the text, and signs it off. That post-evidence sign-off is the follow-up record. If the gap remains, the work paper stays open or is carried forward with a reason, and every change of owner or date is written to the audit log.

What an investor should notice

Follow-up is deliberately manual in the first release. No control test runs, no model is called, and no assessment record is created; the product supplies the register, the evidence request, and the sign-off, and the auditor supplies the judgement. That restraint is the point. Follow-up is where a one-off report becomes a relationship: the firm returns to the same auditee, on dates both sides agreed, with evidence anyone can inspect. Firms do this by hand today, in lists that are not linked to the audit that produced the work paper and not backed by evidence. Run Audit links each open work paper to its recommendation, its remediation owner, and the evidence that eventually closes it, across every audit and auditee the firm holds. The report stays immutable; the work continues.