A finished ACC-680 Topic 6 analytic evidence working paper example, documenting a revenue-to-cash match with tested data sources, preset parameters, resolved differences and a conclusion another auditor could reperform. Searches like "acc 680 topic 6 assignment example", "acc680 topic 6 sample" and "acc-680 topic 6 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-680 Topic 6 analytic evidence working paper looks like
At the top of the finished paper sit its reference, R-7, sign-off fields for preparer and reviewer, and the assertion it serves: occurrence of revenue. Figures throughout are illustrative. Two sources feed it: the billing system's invoice table, reconciled before use to recorded revenue of $214 million, and a bank receipts file the audit team downloaded from the bank's portal itself. Parameters were fixed first: a match on customer, amount within $1 and receipt within two months of year end. The script, its version and run date are recorded. Invoices worth $208.4 million, 97.4 percent of revenue, match cash. The unmatched $5.6 million splits three ways: $4.1 million of receivables still open, cross-referenced to the confirmation paper; $1.2 million of credit memos issued after year end, sent for cutoff testing; $0.3 million carried to the summary of misstatements.
How an ACC-680 Topic 6 example is structured
The paper is laid out in the sequence a reviewer uses to decide whether an analytic can be relied on. Reference and assertion head the paper, and every later block answers to that assertion. The data section follows, one entry per source, stating where it came from, who obtained it and how its completeness and accuracy were tested, since a result is only as reliable as its inputs. Parameters sit in their own block, dated before the run, with the reason for each tolerance. The execution record gives the script name, version, run date and row counts in and out. Results follow, in dollars and as a percentage of revenue. The differences block resolves the unmatched amount line by line, with cross-references to the papers that carry each part. A two-sentence conclusion and the reviewer's sign-off close it.
Both data sources tested before use
The invoice table is reconciled to recorded revenue and the bank file comes straight from the bank's portal, so neither input rests on the client's word alone.
Tolerances dated ahead of the run
Matching rules for customer, amount and timing are recorded with a date earlier than the results, which shows they were not tuned to improve the match rate.
The script identified by version
Naming the script, its version and the run date lets a reviewer rerun the analytic on the same data and expect the same $208.4 million.
Unmatched revenue resolved in parts
Open receivables, post-year-end credit memos and a small residual each go to a specific destination, so the $5.6 million leaves no loose balance.
Cross-references completing the chain
The confirmation paper, the cutoff test and the summary of misstatements are each referenced, linking this analytic to the rest of the evidence on revenue.
Where marks go in ACC-680 Topic 6
Working papers for analytics are marked hardest on the data section, since an unmatched percentage computed from untested inputs is not evidence of anything. Describing the invoice extract without reconciling it to recorded revenue leaves open the chance that the analytic ran on part of the population. A bank file obtained from the client rather than directly weakens the external side of the match, and reviewers ask where it came from. Parameters with no date, or dated after the results, suggest tolerances adjusted until the match looked acceptable. Reporting the 97.4 percent and stopping leaves $5.6 million unexplained, which is exactly where occurrence risk would sit. Missing script versions make the result impossible to reproduce, and a paper nobody can reproduce fails the documentation standard, which asks that an experienced auditor new to the engagement could follow the work.
Get an ACC-680 Topic 6 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-680 Topic 6 instructions, the rubric and the analytic or engagement case your section is documenting. We write a custom example to them, with the assertion named, each data source tested and described, parameters dated before the run, the execution recorded, differences resolved and cross-referenced and a reviewer-ready conclusion, back in 24 to 48 hours. The first one costs nothing.
ACC-680 Topic 6 questions, answered
Why test data the client produced?
Because the analytic's result depends entirely on it. Information produced by the entity may be incomplete, filtered or altered, deliberately or by a faulty report, and an analytic run on a partial extract can show a clean match over the wrong population. Reconciling the extract to the general ledger and understanding how it was produced gives the auditor grounds to treat the output as covering what it claims to cover.
What makes an analytic reperformable?
A second auditor holding the working paper should be able to obtain the same data, apply the same parameters with the same script and reach the same figures. That requires the sources and extraction details, the dated parameters, the script name and version, and the row counts in and out. Where any of these is missing, a reviewer has to trust the preparer, which documentation standards are designed to avoid.
Does a high match rate settle occurrence?
It supports occurrence strongly for the matched portion, since cash received from customers is evidence from outside the company. The unmatched remainder is where the assertion's risk concentrates, so the paper resolves it rather than treating 97.4 percent as close enough. A high rate with an unexplained remainder is a partial result, and the conclusion should be limited accordingly.