Audit Quality
Engagement Quality Review Pass Rate
Pass rates from independent quality reviews of completed audit engagements across review cycles.
Assuring the quality of the assurance
Audit quality cannot be assumed; it must be independently reviewed, which is why ISSAI and IFAC quality-management standards require engagement quality reviews of completed audits. Pass rates from these reviews indicate whether the assurance itself can be trusted before it is relied upon by oversight. AuditPro Core tracks engagement quality review pass rates across cycles so the audit function's own performance is held to the same evidential standard it demands of others.
The Numbers
AuditPro Core renders this view from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records. The figures below are illustrative sample data.
Engagements reviewed
96
this cycle
Pass rate
84%
▲ 5%
Requiring remediation
11
Significant deficiencies
4
▼ 2
Quality review pass rate trend
Review outcomes by engagement type
| Engagement type | Reviewed | Passed |
|---|---|---|
| Municipal regularity | 41 | 33 |
| Departmental regularity | 29 | 26 |
| SOE | 16 | 13 |
| Performance audit | 10 | 9 |
Figures shown are illustrative sample data for demonstration. AuditPro Core renders these views from your own tenant's live, tamper-evident records.
What an engagement quality review checks
An independent reviewer re-examines a completed engagement to confirm the conclusions were appropriate and adequately supported by evidence. It is a check on the audit, not on the audited entity.
Pass rate as an assurance-on-assurance metric
A low pass rate means audit conclusions may not be reliable, undermining every downstream decision. The metric protects the integrity of the assurance chain itself.
Trends across review cycles
Movement in pass rates over successive cycles reveals whether quality is improving or eroding. A single cycle is a snapshot; the trend is the diagnosis.
How AuditPro Core Bridges the Gap
- Review tracking: each completed engagement carries its quality review result and supporting findings.
- Cycle trending: pass rates are compared across review cycles to expose drift in audit quality.
- Exception workflow: failed reviews route to remediation and re-review rather than closing silently.
- Audit-ready export: produce the quality review summary expected by the quality-management framework.
Key Takeaways
- Engagement quality reviews assure the audit, not the audited entity.
- A low pass rate undermines the reliability of every downstream decision.
- Read pass rates as a trend across cycles, not a single snapshot.
- Holding the audit function to its own standard sustains credibility.
See This on Your Own Data
AuditPro Core renders this dashboard from your tenant's live, tamper-evident records — every figure traceable to source.