| Course | AC312 Fundamentals of Accounting Analytics |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Exception testing problem |
| Length | About 550 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC312 Unit 6
Exactly 15.5 Percent, Twice the Same Load, Just Under $25,000: A Unit 6 Exception Testing Problem
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC312: Fundamentals of Accounting Analytics
Unit 6 Exception Testing Problem
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Plainsmark Cooperative, its operators and every figure are composite; the framework, guide and textbook cited are real.
Criteria Set in Advance
Each test states its population, its rule and what counts as an exception before the data is run, so results cannot be shaped to fit a suspicion (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 2017).
Test 1: Moisture Readings at the Threshold
Population: 31,560 corn scale tickets, September through December 2024, all six elevators. Rule: share of loads recorded at exactly 15.5 percent, the point at which no drying charge applies. Exception: any elevator or operator more than twice the cooperative-wide share.
Results: across the five other elevators, 4.1 percent of loads read exactly 15.5. At North, 2,214 of 6,980 loads did, 31.7 percent. Within North, one operator, identified as N-3, recorded 1,806 of 3,020 loads at exactly 15.5, or 59.8 percent; North's other operators averaged 10.2 percent.
Moisture in a truckload of corn varies continuously, so a reading landing precisely on the line that removes the drying charge six times in ten is not a pattern weather produces; it is the pattern a person typing over a probe reading would produce.
The test cannot show why. The probe's own logs, which store each reading before it reaches the ledger, are the next evidence to collect.
Test 2: Duplicate Settlements
Population: 27,912 settlements after cleaning, exact duplicates already removed. Rule: same member, same bushels within one bushel, same amount within one dollar, dated within ten days. Exception: any matching pair.
Results: 41 pairs. Twenty-two are explained by documents: 14 are two trucks from the same field with equal net weights, confirmed by separate scale tickets; 8 are partial settlements of one price-later contract. Nineteen pairs, $112,880.20 in total, have only one scale ticket behind two checks and remain unexplained.
Test 3: Checks Just Under the Approval Limit
Population: 27,912 settlements. Rule: count checks in $1,000 bands around the $25,000 limit above which an elevator manager must approve. Exception: a band more than twice the size of its neighbors.
Results: $23,000 to $23,999.99, 151 checks; $24,000 to $24,999.99, 412 checks; $25,000 to $25,999.99, 139 checks. Of the 412, 268 belong to members who received a second settlement from the same elevator on the same day, which suggests settlements are being split to stay under the limit. Splitting avoids a control designed to put a second person's review on large payments (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 2013).
Combined Exception List
1. Moisture readings at exactly 15.5 percent by operator N-3: 1,806 loads; unexplained; needs probe logs and retained samples.
2. Duplicate settlement pairs with one scale ticket: 19 pairs, $112,880.20; unexplained; needs member confirmation and recovery.
3. Same-day split settlements just under $25,000: 268 checks; partly explained, since some members deliver many loads a day; needs the elevator managers' review of the largest members.
4. Duplicate pairs explained by separate tickets or contracts: 22 pairs; closed.
Exceptions are leads, not conclusions. Each unexplained item needs evidence from outside the ledger before anyone treats it as an error or a fraud (Richardson et al., 2021).
References
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. (2017). Guide to audit data analytics. AICPA.
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2013). Internal control: Integrated framework. https://www.coso.org
Richardson, V. J., Teeter, R. A., & Terrell, K. L. (2021). Data analytics for accounting (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill.
The Purdue Global AC312 Unit 6 instructions
Unit 6 of AC312 asks for several exception tests over a full population. Set the criteria for each before running it: the population, the rule and what counts as an exception. Choose tests suited to the risks raised earlier in the course, such as threshold clusters, duplicates and payments near approval limits. Report each test's result with counts and dollars. Break results down by location, person or member where that narrows the cause. Explain why an exception is unlikely to arise by chance. Separate exceptions explained by documents from those still open, and say what evidence each open item needs. Link control-related exceptions to the internal control framework. End with a combined exception list. Note that exceptions are leads rather than conclusions. Cite the AICPA guide, COSO and the course text in APA 7.
How the AC 312 Unit 6 example is put together
The sample states the principle of fixed criteria and cites the AICPA guide. Test 1 counts corn tickets at exactly 15.5 percent moisture by elevator and operator, finding North at 31.7 percent and operator N-3 at 59.8 percent; the highlighted sentence explains why a reading that precise is not chance, and a note names probe logs as the next evidence. Test 2 defines a duplicate by member, bushels, amount and a ten-day window, then sorts 41 pairs into 22 explained and 19 open. Test 3 counts checks in $1,000 bands around the $25,000 limit and finds 268 same-day splits among the 412 in the band below it, citing COSO on the purpose of approval limits. A four-item exception list gives each item's status and the evidence it still needs, ending with the reminder that exceptions are leads.
Where the points sit in the AC312 Unit 6 rubric
The AC312 rubric for exception testing rewards criteria set before results, so each test should state its population, rule and exception definition up front. Results must be quantified in counts and dollars. Breaking results down by person or location shows how a pattern was narrowed. Explaining why an exception is unlikely to be chance earns analytical credit. Separating explained from unexplained exceptions, with the documents that closed each explained one, demonstrates follow-through. Linking a control exception to the framework shows understanding of why the control exists. A combined list makes the results usable. Restraint in conclusions, treating exceptions as leads, is expected. Clear test sections allow the grader to verify each step. Purdue Global's AC312 instructors expect the AICPA guide, COSO and the course text cited in APA 7.
AC312 Unit 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Exception tests often set criteria after looking at the data, so any result looks like a finding. Students report a count without dollars, or dollars without a count. Patterns are reported cooperative-wide when a breakdown by person would locate them. Every exception is treated as an error, or every exception is explained away without documents. Duplicates are defined loosely, catching legitimate repeat transactions. Approval-limit tests ignore same-day splitting. Without a combined list at the end, nobody can tell which items are closed and which still need work. Conclusions about fraud are drawn from patterns alone. If your section's tests involve payroll, expense reports or vendor master changes, a writer can set the criteria, run the logic and prepare the exception list for your population.
Get an AC312 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Send the population your Unit 6 problem supplies, the tests it names and any approval limits or thresholds it defines, along with the rubric. The three tests, their tables and the exception list come back within 24-48h, together with the query or workbook that produced them. A first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More AC312 papers and BS in Accounting samples
- AC312 Unit 1: What Data Can Answer Post
- AC312 Unit 2: Data Question Framing Exercise
- AC312 Unit 3: Data Cleaning Log
- AC312 Unit 4: Descriptive Analysis Exercise
- AC312 Unit 5: Ledger Relationship Analysis
- AC312 Unit 7: Visualization Set
- AC312 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC312 Unit 9: Dashboard Build
- AC312 Unit 10: Analytics Summary Report
- AC302 Unit 6: Cash Flow Interpretation Memo
- AC301 Unit 6: Lease Classification Analysis
- AC300 Unit 6: Bank Reconciliation
- AC256 Unit 6: Property Transactions Problem
AC312 Unit 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free AC312 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page holds a complete AC312 Unit 6 exception testing problem for a composite grain cooperative, with three full-population tests, criteria set in advance, a combined exception list and APA 7 references.
Why is the moisture cluster in AC312 Unit 6 not chance?
Moisture in a load varies continuously, so readings rarely land on one exact value. Six in ten loads at precisely the no-charge line for one operator is what manual entry would produce, not weather.
How were 22 duplicate pairs explained in AC312 Unit 6?
Fourteen were two trucks from one field with equal weights, each backed by its own scale ticket. Eight were partial settlements of a single price-later contract.
Why do same-day checks under $25,000 matter in AC312 Unit 6?
The limit puts a manager's approval on large payments. Splitting one member's payment into two checks the same day keeps each under the limit and skips that review.
Does the AC312 Unit 6 sample prove the operator changed readings?
No. The test shows a pattern. The probe's own logs, retained samples and an interview would be needed before anyone concluded readings were altered.