| Course | AC557 Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 9 |
| Paper type | Remediation plan |
| Length | About 750 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 9
Owners, Dates and the Days a Fix Must Run: A Unit 9 Remediation Plan That Counts Back From Year-End
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
AC557: Internal Control Design, Development, and Evaluation
Unit 9 Remediation Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Rookwood Metal Recovery, its staff and every date are composite; the standard, guidance and framework cited are real.
Memorandum
To: Program office for SOX, parent From: Control analyst, Rookwood Date: August 6 Re: Remediation of scrap purchasing deficiencies
Why Dates Matter
Management's assessment speaks as of December 31. A deficiency is remediated for that purpose only when the corrected control has operated for long enough to be tested and found effective before the assessment date (Securities and Exchange Commission, 2007). A fix that goes live on December 20 is not remediated at year-end, however well it is designed, because it cannot be shown to have operated. The plan therefore works backward from December 31: each fix's retest window must close by mid-December, and its operating period must come before that.
The Register
Each row gives the deficiency, root cause, fix, owner, target completion, interim measure, evidence of completion, minimum operating period and retest window.
R-1, override review (C-07). Root cause: the review is detective and depends on one controller's availability and on a report that misses after-midnight overrides. Fix: make the control preventive; overrides above $150 will route to the yard controller for approval in the scale software before a ticket can be paid, with a named delegate when the controller is absent; correct the report's date filter. Owner: regional controller, with IT for the software change. Target: September 15. Interim: the regional controller reviews all overrides above $150 weekly from the database until go-live. Evidence: the configuration change ticket and a test of the routing. Minimum operating period: thirty operating days, since the control runs many times a day. Retest window: November 1 to 21, sample of forty.
R-2, grade photo (C-03). Root cause: the software records unloading when the yard hand presses a button, after the photo. Fix: the grader's tablet will not accept a photo once the truck has moved from the scale to the bay, using the scale exit time; add a new detective control in which the yard controller regrades ten loads a week from their photos. Owner: purchasing director. Target: October 1. Interim: graders photograph in the truck under supervisor observation, spot-checked daily. Evidence: software release notes and a walkthrough. Minimum operating period: thirty operating days. Retest window: November 15 to December 5.
R-3, scale checks at Kiln Street (C-02). Root cause: the calibration log was kept on paper by one supervisor who was on leave in March and April. Fix: move the log into the maintenance system with an automatic reminder and escalation after three days. Owner: operations manager. Target: September 1. Interim: the regional supervisor performs Kiln Street checks. Evidence: September, October and November checks recorded. Minimum operating period: two monthly occurrences. Retest window: December 1 to 10.
R-4, kiosk loading (C-11). Root cause: the kiosk accepts any two codes and one was written on a card. Fix: issue personal codes linked to employee badges, prohibit code sharing in the procedure, and have the kiosk reject two codes from the same badge. Owner: treasury manager. Target: September 1. Interim: daily reconciliation reviewed by the yard controller. Evidence: kiosk configuration and badge assignments. Minimum operating period: thirty loadings. Retest window: October 15 to 31.
R-5, override report (supporting R-1). Fixed with R-1.
A remediation date is only meaningful if the fixed control can then run long enough to be tested before December 31, so the plan's real deadlines are the operating periods counted back from year-end, not the go-live dates.
A redesigned control is evaluated like any new control: its design first, then enough operation to support a conclusion (Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 2007).
The scale check is the riskiest item for year-end. As a monthly control, it needs two occurrences after remediation; if the September 1 date slips to October, only November and December would occur before year-end, and the December occurrence cannot be tested in time. The operations manager has confirmed the September date.
The kiosk fix, by contrast, has room to spare: thirty loadings take about five weeks.
Governance
The regional controller reports progress on each row to the SOX program office every two weeks, and any slipped date is escalated to the parent's controller with a revised year-end conclusion (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 9 instructions, in plain terms
The ninth AC557 unit asks you to plan remediation of control deficiencies. Explain why timing matters for the assessment date, since a fixed control must operate long enough to be tested before year-end. Build a register with one row per deficiency giving the root cause, the fix, the owner, the target date, an interim measure, the evidence that will show completion, the minimum operating period and the retest window. Address root causes rather than symptoms; changing a detective control into a preventive one is often the stronger fix. Identify the tightest item, the one most likely to miss year-end, and what would happen if it slipped. Describe how progress will be reported and escalated. Send it as a memo to the assessment's program office. Draw the timing rules from the SEC release and AS 2201, with COSO, cited in APA 7.
How this AC557 Unit 9 example is built
The sample explains why a fix live on December 20 cannot be called remediated at year-end and works backward from December 31. The register's first row turns the override review into an approval step for overrides above $150 with a delegate, fixes the report's date filter and sets thirty operating days before a November retest. The second locks grade photos to the scale exit and adds a weekly ten-load regrade. The third moves Kiln Street's calibration log into the maintenance system with escalation. The fourth links kiosk codes to badges. The highlighted sentence states the counting-back logic. Sections identify the scale check as the tightest item and set two-weekly reporting with escalation.
AC557 Unit 9 rubric: what earns full points
Remediation plans in AC557 earn points for root-cause fixes with owners, dates and realistic operating periods. Graders check that each row identifies why the control failed, not just what failed, and that fixes address that cause. The rubric rewards counting back from the assessment date so that each control can operate and be retested in time, interim measures that limit exposure meanwhile, and defined evidence of completion. Identifying the riskiest item and its consequences shows judgment. Plans that list fixes without operating periods, set go-live dates too late to test, or omit interim measures lose credit. Memo format, reporting and escalation, and APA 7 references complete the plan.
AC557 Unit 9 help: mistakes that cost points
Weak Unit 9 plans set completion dates without considering how long the fixed control must run before testing, so several fixes cannot be concluded on at year-end. Root causes are skipped, and fixes repeat the failed control with a reminder to try harder. Interim measures are missing, leaving exposure open for months. Owners are departments rather than named roles. Monthly controls are scheduled as if one occurrence were enough. Progress reporting is not described. If your section's deficiencies differ, a writer can build the register and timeline counting back from your assessment date.
Get an AC557 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
Carry over the deficiencies from your Unit 7 work, or use the findings the Unit 9 case lists, and include the assessment date and the rubric. Each fix arrives with a root cause, an owner, dates set back from that deadline and proof of closure. Allow 24-48h; the first custom plan is on us. 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 6: Control Testing Workpaper
- AC557 Unit 7: Control Deficiency Evaluation Memo
- AC557 Unit 8: Compensating Control Seminar Reflection
- AC557 Unit 10: Control Assessment Report
- AC550 Unit 9: Internal Control Gap Assessment
- AC507 Unit 9: Tax-Free Reorganization Case Study
- AC505 Unit 9: Capital Investment Analysis
- AC501 Unit 9: VIE Disclosure Note Draft
AC557 Unit 9 questions, answered
Why does the operating period matter?
Because management can conclude a remediated control is effective only after it has operated long enough to be tested. A daily control switched on in late December offers too few occurrences to sample. The plan's dates are set backward from December 31 so each redesigned control accumulates enough operation, and retesting finishes, before the assessment date.
Can a detective control be remediated by making it preventive?
Often, and that is the plan's choice for overrides. Routing large overrides for approval before payment stops the problem at its source instead of finding it the next day. The change is an automated configuration, so it falls under the parent's change management process and needs its own evidence: an export of the rule and a test of one.
Who should receive the remediation plan?
Those responsible for the controls and those overseeing financial reporting. Here, the plan goes to Rookwood's leadership, the parent's SOX program office and, because the aggregate finding reached significant deficiency, the parent's audit committee, which receives monthly status reports until every item has been retested and closed.
Where can I find a free AC557 Unit 9 sample paper?
This page holds a full AC557 Unit 9 remediation plan for Rookwood Metal Recovery with a five-row register, root causes, owners, operating periods, retest windows and APA 7 references.
Why is the scale check the tightest item?
As a monthly control it needs two occurrences after the fix before it can be retested. If the September date slipped to October, too few checks would occur before year-end to support a conclusion.