Stop before filing the note. Compare the final inserted text with your contemporaneous notes, permitted recording, and underlying evidence; correct the material error in the firm's approved working-paper system; then follow the engagement's review and escalation procedure. A fluent sentence such as “there were no exceptions” may be a serious change if the process owner actually reported two open exceptions. Do not let the formatter's wording become a source of audit evidence.
For engagements under PCAOB standards, AS 1105 explains that inquiry alone does not supply sufficient evidence for a relevant assertion or a conclusion about control effectiveness. AS 1215 addresses documentation of procedures, evidence, conclusions, review, and significant information inconsistent with the final conclusion. These standards do not prescribe a SuprFlow setting; the engagement methodology and applicable standards determine the exact correction and retention procedure.
A synthetic example with a material reversal
Use a fictional purchase-to-pay walkthrough. An auditor speaks: “The manager said two exceptions remained open at 31 August. I saw the dashboard but did not inspect the supporting logs. We need the exception listing and evidence of the reviewer's sign-off.” Suppose the final inserted paragraph says: “No exceptions remained open at month-end. The auditor inspected the logs and confirmed the review operated.”
There are at least three problems: two became zero; did not inspect became inspected; and a pending procedure became a conclusion. Fixing punctuation will not solve them. The auditor should use the approved source records and engagement process to document the manager's statement separately from the auditor's observation and the evidence still to obtain. If the incorrect version was already filed or reviewed, follow the firm's correction and escalation process rather than silently overwriting the audit trail.
Find where the change happened
- Identify the final destination. Was the wrong sentence inserted into a local draft, a synced working-paper system, an email, or the wrong engagement? The destination determines who may have seen it and what correction procedure applies.
- Check the source of truth. Compare with meeting notes, an approved recording if one exists, exception listing, and other workpapers. A dictated text history is useful for troubleshooting but does not prove what the control owner said or that the control operated.
- Compare processing stages where policy permits. SuprFlow can save raw, cleaned, and formatted transcript versions locally. Comparing those copies may show whether recognition or formatting introduced the change. Protect and retain them only under the firm's approved policy; local history is not automatically the official audit file.
- Check the formatter path. Default SuprFlow cleanup is local. Optional Cloud API formatting sends transcript text and instructions to the configured provider; a custom Ollama endpoint can be remote. Record the exact signed build, mode, endpoint, and prompt used. If the mode was unapproved for client data, invoke the firm's incident process as well as correcting the workpaper.
- Correct and review the engagement record. Attribute what was said, identify what was actually observed or inspected, state which evidence remains to be obtained, and avoid a conclusion before the required work. Have the responsible reviewer follow the firm's methodology for changes, documentation, and any prior reliance on the wrong note.
| Wording to inspect | Why it changes the record |
|---|---|
| “Two exceptions” → “no exceptions” | Removes a finding and may change testing or reporting. |
| “Manager said” → “auditor confirmed” | Converts an inquiry into apparent independent evidence. |
| “Did not inspect” → “inspected” | Falsely records a procedure as performed. |
| “Need sign-off evidence” → “sign-off reviewed” | Closes an open evidence request without support. |
Do not keep trying prompts until an AI output looks plausible and then use it as the record. If this error pattern recurs, disable that formatter for evidence-sensitive notes or return to a controlled raw/local drafting path pending evaluation. Test a fictional script with a negation, exception count, control frequency, and pending evidence item before staff resume the workflow. An editor can improve readability; it cannot supply missing audit procedures.
Questions people ask
Can I simply edit the wrong sentence and move on?
If it was only an unshared draft, the firm may allow a normal correction. If it was filed, reviewed, sent, or used to plan work, follow the engagement's documentation and escalation rules. Keep any required record of what changed and why; do not quietly erase a material inconsistency.
Is SuprFlow's raw transcript the original audit evidence?
No. It is an app-generated text copy of speech. It may help locate a transcription or formatting error, but it does not replace source documents, a permitted recording, or the auditor's documented procedures. The firm decides what copies belong in the official file.
Would local formatting eliminate this risk?
It removes one external provider transfer but does not guarantee correct wording. Local cleanup, speech recognition, and human dictation can all misstate a number or negation. Check the final output and use the firm's review process.
Related guides
- Dictate an audit walkthrough note
- Offline dictation for accountants and auditors
- Choose local or cloud formatting
- Where does SuprFlow send dictation?