Negotiations over Accounting Issues: The Congruency of Audit Partner and Chief Financial Officer Recalls
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of what takes place in auditor-client management negotiations occurs in unobservable settings and normally does not result in publicly available archival records. Recent research has increasingly attempted to probe issues relating to accounting negotiations in part due to recent events in the financial world. In this paper, we compare recalls from the two sides of such negotiations, audit partners, and chief financial officers (CFOs), collected in two field questionnaires. We examine the congruency of the auditors' and the CFOs' negotiation recalls for all negotiation elements and features that were common across the two questionnaires (detailed analyses of the questionnaires are reported elsewhere). The results show largely congruent recall: only limited divergences in recall of common elements and features. Specifically, we show a high level of congruency across CFOs and audit partners in the type of issues negotiated, parties involved in resolving the issue, and the elements making up the negotiation process, including agreement on the relative importance of various common accounting contextual features. The analysis of the common accounting contextual features suggests that certain contextual features are consistently important across large numbers of negotiations, whether viewed from the audit partner's or the CFO's perspective, and hence may warrant future study. Finally, the comparative analysis allows us to identify certain common elements and contextual features that may influence both audit partners and CFOs to consider the accounting negotiation setting as mainly distributive (win-lose).
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it