| Course | AC557 Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 6 |
| Paper type | Testing workpaper |
| Length | About 720 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 6
Three of Forty Yard-Days Failed: A Unit 6 Testing Workpaper on the Daily Override Review
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC557: Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation
Unit 6 Testing Workpaper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Rookwood Metal Recovery, its staff and every figure are composite; the framework, standard and guidance cited are real.
Header
Entity: Rookwood Metal Recovery. Process: scrap purchasing. Period: January 1 to June 30. Workpaper: TC-07. Control: C-07, daily override review. Objective: determine whether the control operated effectively during the period. Prepared by: internal control analyst, July 9. Reviewed by: left open for the SOX program manager.
Page 1: The Control and Attributes
Control C-07, summarized from the design matrix: the yard controller reviews the previous day's override report every operating day, signs off by mid-morning of the following business day, and documents a follow-up for any override worth more than $150, sending unexplained ones up to the regional controller.
Attributes tested for each sampled yard-day:
A. The yard controller's system sign-off is stamped no later than 10:00 the morning after the yard-day reviewed.
B. Every override above $150 on the report has a documented investigation: the reason, who authorized the override and the controller's conclusion.
C. The report used was complete and correctly run: every override in the ticket database for that day appears on it.
Page 2: Testing the Report
Because the review relies on a system report, its completeness and accuracy were tested before relying on it (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2007). The report's query was obtained from IT and compared with the report specification; it selects tickets with an override flag for one yard and one date. For five randomly chosen yard-days, the analyst ran an independent query of the ticket database for all tickets whose final price differed from the posted price for the grade, and compared the results with the report the controller had signed. Four agreed exactly. For Kiln Street on March 14, the independent query found nineteen overrides and the signed report showed seventeen. IT traced the difference to two tickets whose override was entered after midnight on a late-running shift, which the report's date filter excluded. That gap affects attribute C for any yard-day following a late shift.
Page 3: Sample and Results
Forty yard-days were selected at random from the 446 operating yard-days in the period: fifteen at Harbor Road, fourteen at Kiln Street and eleven at Millrace Avenue, roughly proportional to each yard's operating days.
Thirty-seven yard-days met all three attributes. Three did not.
Exception 1, Harbor Road, February 7. Attribute A failed. Sign-off at 2:40 p.m.; the controller was at the parent's quarterly meeting and signed on return. All overrides were investigated.
Exception 2, Kiln Street, March 14. Attribute C failed. The signed report omitted two after-midnight overrides of $210 and $640; neither was investigated. Both were later reviewed and found authorized by the yard manager for a contractor's large load.
Exception 3, Millrace Avenue, May 22. Attribute B failed. Of eleven overrides above $150, three had no documented investigation. The controller said she had discussed them with the general manager by phone. The three overrides totaled $1,980.
The second exception matters more than its dollars, because it shows the review can be performed perfectly on a report that leaves overrides out, so testing the reviewer without testing the report would have missed the failure entirely.
Page 4: Evaluation
The plan set forty yard-days with no deviations allowed for reliance on a fraud-susceptible control. Three deviations in forty, a rate of 7.5 percent, exceeds any tolerable rate for this control. The deviations have different causes: absence without a delegate, a report design flaw and incomplete documentation. None was isolated to one person or one day.
Page 5: Conclusion
Control C-07 did not operate effectively for the period January 1 to June 30. The report's date filter is a separate design deficiency in the report, affecting any control that relies on it. Both matters are referred to the deficiency evaluation in Unit 7. Management's assessment must consider deficiencies like these in combination as well as alone (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2007). Exception 3 also bears on the Unit 1 concern about overrides directed by the general manager and is noted for the evaluation of the control environment (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.
AC557 Unit 6 instructions, in plain terms
The sixth AC557 unit asks you to prepare a workpaper documenting tests of a control. Use a header with the entity, process, period, workpaper reference, control, objective, preparer and an open reviewer line. Restate the control and list the attributes tested. If the control relies on a system report, test the report's completeness and accuracy before relying on it, and record how. Explain how many items you chose and by what method. Record results for every item, giving full detail for each exception: the date, the attribute that failed, the cause and any amount. Evaluate the deviations against the plan's tolerance and consider their causes. Conclude clearly, and refer findings to the next stage, noting any separate deficiency the testing revealed. Write so a reviewer can re-perform your reasoning. Reference the PCAOB standard on report testing, COSO and the SEC release in APA 7.
How this AC557 Unit 6 example is built
The sample's header indexes the workpaper TC-07 for January to June with the reviewer line open. Page one restates C-07 and three attributes: a sign-off by 10:00 the next morning, documented investigations above $150, and a complete report. Page two compares five signed reports with independent database queries and finds two after-midnight overrides missing from Kiln Street's March 14 report. Page three samples forty of 446 yard-days and records three exceptions: a 2:40 p.m. sign-off at Harbor Road, the omitted overrides of $210 and $640, and three uninvestigated overrides totaling $1,980 at Millrace Avenue. The highlighted sentence explains the report test's value. The conclusion refers the control and the report flaw onward.
Reading the AC557 Unit 6 grading rubric
Testing workpapers in AC557 earn points for reviewability and sound conclusions. Graders check the header, the restated control, the attributes and the selection method, and expect every exception to be described with date, attribute, cause and amount. The rubric rewards testing system reports used by reviewers before relying on them and recognizing that a report flaw is a separate deficiency. Evaluation should compare deviations with the planned tolerance and consider whether causes are isolated. A clear conclusion and referral to deficiency evaluation complete the logic. Workpapers that report only a pass or fail, omit exception detail or ignore the report the control depends on lose substantial credit. APA 7 references support the work.
AC557 Unit 6 help from the desk
Weak Unit 6 workpapers state that three exceptions were found without describing them, so a reviewer cannot judge their cause or significance. The system report is assumed complete. Exceptions are explained away, for example treating an afternoon sign-off as harmless because the overrides were later reviewed. The conclusion hedges instead of stating whether the control operated effectively. The reviewer line is filled in by the preparer. Findings are not referred anywhere. If your section's control or sample differs, a writer can prepare the workpaper with your attributes, results and exceptions.
Get an AC557 Unit 6 example written to your instructions
Supply the control your Unit 6 prompt tests, the results or population data the case gives, any workpaper format the section expects, and the rubric. Attributes are recorded item by item and exceptions traced to cause, with the reviewer line left for someone else. Turnaround is 24-48h, free for a first custom workpaper. 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 4: Control Walkthrough Memo
- AC557 Unit 5: Test of Controls Plan
- AC557 Unit 7: Deficiency Evaluation Memo
- AC557 Unit 8: Seminar Reflection
- AC557 Unit 9: Remediation Plan
- AC557 Unit 10: Control Assessment Report
- AC550 Unit 6: Data Governance Brief
- AC507 Unit 6: Corporate Liquidation Problem
- AC505 Unit 6: Capacity Cost Analysis Worksheet
- AC501 Unit 6: Fair Value vs Amortized Cost Comparison
AC557 Unit 6 questions, answered
Why test the override report before the sample?
Because the controller's review can only be as complete as the report being reviewed. If the report dropped some overrides, a perfect review of it would still miss them. Testing the report's parameters and agreeing its counts to the ticket register gives the sample something solid to stand on, and the workpaper keeps that evidence on its own page.
Could a bigger sample have rescued the control?
Not with three deviations. Plans that tolerate zero deviations sometimes allow a single deviation to be reconsidered with an extended sample, but three indicate the control is not operating as designed. The workpaper says so directly instead of drawing more days in the hope of diluting the rate, and it explains that reasoning in two sentences.
Who should sign the reviewer line?
Someone other than the preparer, after reviewing the work. The sample leaves the reviewer half of the sign-off strip empty, because a reviewer's initials entered by the preparer would misrepresent what happened. In a course setting, the instructor or a named classmate may play that role, and the workpaper shows where their sign-off would go.
Where can I find a free AC557 Unit 6 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC557 Unit 6 testing workpaper on the daily override review at Rookwood Metal Recovery with a report completeness test, three exceptions in forty and APA 7 references.
Why does a report flaw count as a separate deficiency?
Because any control that relies on the override report inherits its gap. A reviewer can do everything right and still miss overrides the report never shows, so the report itself needs fixing.