The Impact of Continuity on Concurring Partner Reviews: An Exploratory Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Public expectations of auditors' objectivity, the on-going debate over auditors' independence (SEC 2001), and previous research motivate our study of one aspect of auditor rotation. Using an experimental case, we examine the impact of continuity on concurring partner reviews. Continuity specifically refers to a concurring partner's assumed degree of prior involvement with a client engagement. We explore two levels of prior involvement—a continuing concurring partner (i.e., involved as a concurring partner in the current and prior year's engagement) and a new concurring partner (i.e., involved as a concurring partner in the current year's engagement only). Based on information in the case, audit partners in the role of concurring partners make judgments related to goodwill impairment. Consistent with our expectation, continuing concurring partners are less likely than new concurring partners to conclude that purchased goodwill may be impaired. Based on our results, the recent regulatory actions mandating within-firm rotation of concurring partners are likely to affect audit firm judgments.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.182 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".