| Course | AC557 Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 4 |
| Paper type | Process walkthrough |
| Length | About 780 words, 5 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | MS in Accounting |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for AC557 Unit 4
Following Ticket H-40718 Through the Yard: A Unit 4 Process Walkthrough of Scrap Purchasing
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC557: Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation
Unit 4 Process Walkthrough
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Rookwood Metal Recovery, its staff, the seller and every figure are composite; the framework, standard and guidance cited are real.
Memorandum
To: SOX Program Office, parent company From: Internal Control Analyst Date: June 18 Re: Walkthrough of scrap purchasing, Harbor Road yard
Purpose and Method
The walkthrough confirms, for management's own assessment, that the purchase cycle and its controls operate as the process narrative and control matrix describe. One transaction was followed from the gate to payment on June 11, observing each step, asking the person performing it what they do and why, and inspecting the records produced. A walkthrough is the most efficient way to confirm understanding of a process and to evaluate the design of its controls before testing them (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2007). A marked-up copy of the narrative is attached, with each step's paragraph reference.
The Seven Steps
1. Gate and seller identification. At 10:42 the seller arrived in a pickup. The gate attendant scanned his driver's license and photographed the plate. The software matched both to an existing seller record. Consistent with narrative paragraph 3 and control C-12.
2. Weigh-in. The truck crossed scale two at 10:44. The gross weight of 6,180 pounds was captured by the scale interface; the operator could not type a weight. Consistent with C-06.
3. Grading. The grader climbed the truck's step, inspected the copper, classified it as number two copper because of solder and paint on some pieces, and selected the grade on her tablet. She then asked the seller to drive to the copper bay. Here practice departed from procedure. The control, C-03, requires the photo to be taken in the truck bed before unloading, so that a reviewer can see what the grader saw. The grader took the photo at 10:51, after the seller had tipped the load onto the floor of the copper bay. The software accepted it because the unload event is recorded when the yard hand presses "unloaded" on his own tablet, which he did at 10:53, after the photo.
4. Unloading. The yard hand confirmed the copper was in the bay and pressed "unloaded."
5. Weigh-out. The empty truck crossed scale two at 10:58, giving a tare of 3,780 pounds and a net of 2,400 pounds. Consistent with C-01.
6. Pricing and ticket. The software applied the posted price for number two copper, $3.40 a pound, giving $8,160. No override was used. Consistent with C-08, an automated control whose reliance depends on the general controls over the scale software (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2007).
7. Kiosk payment. The seller took the printed ticket to the payment kiosk, which scanned the ticket barcode, matched his license and paid by cash card. Consistent with C-12. The analyst also observed the kiosk's morning cash loading at 7:30. One cashier loaded it, entering both her own code and a second code written on a card taped inside the kiosk door. The procedure and control C-11 require two employees with separate codes.
Both exceptions defeat a control that looks fine in the system: the grade photo carries a valid timestamp and the kiosk log shows two codes, yet in each case the evidence no longer proves what the control was designed to prove.
Findings
Finding 1, grade photo. The photo taken on the bay floor shows the metal but not the mix as it arrived; a reviewer cannot tell whether a load was graded before mixed material was separated out. The grader said the bay floor gives better light and that most graders do the same. This is a design weakness in how the software defines the unload event, not one grader's error.
Finding 2, kiosk loading. The shared code makes C-11 a one-person control. The cashier said the second person is often on break at opening. Because the control cannot operate as designed, testing its operation would add nothing until it is redesigned.
What Was Confirmed
Apart from the two findings, the walkthrough confirmed the narrative and the matrix. Every system control seen, the identification scan, the scale interface and the posted price, worked as documented, and staff described their steps the same way the procedures do.
Effect on Testing
C-03 and C-11 are referred for deficiency evaluation. C-06, C-08 and C-12 were seen operating and will be tested as planned. The other yards will be asked whether their graders and cashiers follow the same practice (Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, 2013).
References
Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. (2013). Internal control: Integrated framework. COSO.
Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. (2007). An audit of internal control over financial reporting that is integrated with an audit of financial statements (Auditing Standard No. 5). PCAOB.
Securities and Exchange Commission. (2007). Commission guidance regarding management's report on internal control over financial reporting under Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Release No. 33-8810). SEC.
Reading the AC 557 Unit 4 instructions
The fourth AC557 unit asks you to perform and document a walkthrough of a business process. State the purpose and method: which transaction you followed, how you observed and inquired, and which narrative and matrix you were confirming. Follow the transaction through each step in order, recording what happened, who did it, what records were produced and whether it matched documentation and the related control. Where practice departs from procedure, describe exactly how and why, and decide whether the departure is a design gap or an individual's error. Note what was confirmed as well as what was not. Explain the effect on the test plan, including controls that should not be tested until redesigned. Address the memo to the office running the assessment. Lean on AS 2201 for method, with COSO and the SEC release as further APA 7 sources.
How this AC557 Unit 4 example is built
The sample's memo explains that one ticket was followed on June 11 and attaches a marked-up narrative. Seven steps follow: identification and plate scans at the gate, weigh-in captured by the scale interface, grading where the photo was taken at 10:51 on the bay floor while the unload button was pressed at 10:53, unloading, weigh-out to a net of 2,400 pounds, automatic pricing at $8,160, and kiosk payment. The analyst also observed morning kiosk loading by one cashier with a code taped inside the door. The highlighted sentence explains how both defeat controls with clean records. Findings classify each as a design weakness, and the testing section refers both for evaluation.
AC557 Unit 4 rubric: what earns full points
Walkthrough memos in AC557 earn points for a complete, observed trace and precise findings. Graders check that each step records the actor, the evidence and its agreement with documentation and controls. The rubric rewards explaining exactly how practice departs from procedure and whether the cause is design or execution, since that decides the response. Recognizing that system records can look clean while a control fails earns credit. Stating what was confirmed, and how findings change the test plan, shows the walkthrough was used. Memos that summarize the process without a specific transaction, or label every departure as one employee's mistake, lose credit. A memo layout with APA 7 references finishes it.
AC557 Unit 4 help from the desk
Weak Unit 4 walkthroughs describe the process from the procedure manual instead of following a real transaction. Steps are recorded without saying who performed them or what record resulted. Departures from procedure are noted but not analyzed, so the reader cannot tell whether redesign or training is needed. Students accept a time-stamped record as proof that a control worked without asking what the timestamp actually measures. The effect on testing is left out. If your section's process or transaction differs, a writer can document the walkthrough step by step from your case materials.
Get an AC557 Unit 4 example written to your instructions
Share the case's process narrative and whatever control wording it cites, together with the rubric. One transaction is followed step by step against that narrative, each step tested by more than inquiry and every finding classified. Expect it in 24-48h; the first custom walkthrough carries no fee. 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 AC557 papers and MS in Accounting samples
- AC557 Unit 1: Control Environment Discussion
- AC557 Unit 2: Control Objectives and Risks Worksheet
- AC557 Unit 3: Internal Control Design Matrix
- AC557 Unit 5: Test Plan
- AC557 Unit 6: Testing Workpaper
- AC557 Unit 7: Deficiency Evaluation Memo
- AC557 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC557 Unit 9: Remediation Plan
- AC557 Unit 10: Control Assessment Report
- AC550 Unit 4: System Requirements Analysis
- AC507 Unit 4: Corporate Property Distribution Problem
- AC505 Unit 4: Sell or Process Further Analysis
- AC501 Unit 4: GAAP Research Memo
AC557 Unit 4 questions, answered
Is management's walkthrough the same as the auditor's?
Similar in method, different in owner and purpose. PCAOB AS 2201 frames walkthroughs for the external auditor, who uses them to confirm understanding and find points where misstatements could arise. This memo is management's, prepared for its own assessment under Section 404(a) within the parent's program. Both rely on inquiry, observation, inspection and reperformance.
Why is the photo problem a design gap rather than an operating failure?
Because the procedure as written lets the photo be taken after unloading, so even a grader following it exactly produces a picture that cannot show what the truck carried. An operating failure would mean a sound procedure performed badly. Classifying it as design changes the remedy from retraining people to relocating the camera.
Why follow only one ticket?
A walkthrough aims at understanding, and one transaction followed completely confirms each step and its controls more reliably than several followed in part. Whether controls operated across the year is a separate question answered with samples, which the next units cover. The memo names that limit in its closing paragraph so nobody reads more into it.
Where can I find a free AC557 Unit 4 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC557 Unit 4 process walkthrough of ticket H-40718 at Rookwood Metal Recovery, a made-up three-yard recycler, with seven observed steps, two design findings and APA 7 references.
Why did the software accept a photo taken after unloading?
Because it records the unload event when the yard hand presses a button, which happened two minutes after the grader's photo on the bay floor. The timestamp was valid, but the photo no longer showed the load as received.