A finished ACC-682 Topic 1 disaggregation judgment paper example, using contract-level data to test nine categories and choosing contract type and customer sector for the revenue note, with reasons for each rejection. Searches like "acc 682 topic 1 assignment example", "acc682 topic 1 sample" and "acc-682 topic 1 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-682 Topic 1 disaggregation judgment paper looks like
The finished paper argues that analytics widens the preparer's options without choosing among them, and shows it on one reporting decision, every figure illustrative. Revenue of $412 million from 1,340 contracts is tested against nine attributes the system holds, from region to billing frequency. For each, the analysis asks whether the groups actually behave differently in the ways the disclosure objective in ASC 606-10-50-5 names: nature, amount, timing and uncertainty. Two attributes pass clearly. Fixed-price contracts, $239 million, show far wider margin variance than the $173 million on time-and-materials terms, and public-sector customers, $144 million, take 94 days to pay against 51 for private clients. Region fails, since 97 percent of revenue is domestic, and service line is already the segment basis, so it is handled through the link to segment revenue that ASC 606-10-50-6 requires.
How an ACC-682 Topic 1 example is structured
The paper is organized as a position, a test and a decision. Its opening states the thesis: the data makes every cut possible and none of them obligatory, so the choice remains an accounting judgment that someone signs. A method section explains the test applied to each attribute, a comparison of margin spread, collection days and revenue timing across its groups, with what would count as a meaningful difference written down first. A results table follows, one row per attribute with the measures and a pass or fail. The judgment section then goes beyond the table, weighing what a reader of the note could do with each category and why two categories serve better than five. Rejected attributes each get a sentence of reasons. The paper closes with the draft disclosure table, cross-referenced to segment revenue, and a note on which attributes to retest next year.
Every attribute tested, not assumed
Nine attributes in the contract system are each compared on margin spread, collection days and timing, so the categories chosen rest on measured differences.
Contract type chosen for uncertainty
Fixed-price work carries the firm's cost overrun risk and shows the widest margin variance, which is the uncertainty a reader of the note most needs separated.
Customer sector chosen for cash timing
Public-sector clients paying in 94 days against 51 make sector the category that shows when revenue turns into cash, a factor the standard names directly.
Rejections given reasons, not silence
Region, billing frequency and the remaining attributes are each dismissed in a sentence, because a reviewer asking why they are absent deserves an answer on file.
The segment link kept visible
Because service line already defines the reportable segments, the draft table shows each chosen category by segment, so the note and segment disclosure read together.
Where marks go in ACC-682 Topic 1
Papers answering the opening question with a list of the software's capabilities lose the most, since speed and volume say nothing about which disclosure the firm should make. The mirror image is a paper that dismisses the tooling as clerical and picks categories by habit, with no data to show the groups differ. Disaggregating by all nine attributes treats more detail as better disclosure, and a table that long obscures the two differences a reader needs. Choosing region because other companies disclose it, when almost all revenue is domestic, repeats a template instead of the standard's objective. Leaving the chosen categories unconnected to segment revenue misses a requirement of the guidance. Credit also goes missing where the paper never says who owns the judgment, since the tooling produced figures and the controller chose what the note will say.
Get an ACC-682 Topic 1 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-682 Topic 1 instructions, your classroom rubric and the company data or case your section assigned. We write a custom example to them, with the tooling's contribution stated, candidate categories tested on the data, the chosen disclosure tied to the standard's objective and each rejection explained, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
ACC-682 Topic 1 questions, answered
What does ASC 606 require a company to disaggregate?
Revenue from contracts with customers, into categories that depict how the nature, amount, timing and uncertainty of revenue and cash flows are affected by economic factors. The guidance lists possible categories, such as type of good or service, geography, customer type, contract type, duration and timing of transfer, and leaves the selection to the preparer. That selection is the judgment the paper documents.
Why not disclose every category the data supports?
Because a disclosure is read, and nine overlapping splits of the same revenue bury the two that show real differences in risk and cash timing. The standard asks for categories that depict how economic factors affect revenue, not for every available cut. The paper tests each attribute so the ones left out are excluded on evidence, and says so in writing.
How is this different from auditing revenue with analytics?
The auditor uses data to test whether reported revenue is supported; the preparer here uses it to decide what the note should report in the first place. Both need reliable data, but the preparer's question ends in a disclosure choice the company owns. This example stays on that reporting side, which is why the paper closes on a draft table rather than on a finding.