Reporting Control Deficiencies in Repeat Internal Audit Engagements<sup>*</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines the reporting of control deficiencies in repeat internal audit engagements. Experienced internal auditors were presented with a hypothetical case in which they were asked about the likelihood of reporting an internal control deficiency discovered last year but which was, “through an oversight,” not reported to company management. The study varies whether the deficiency is an operational control or an internal control over financial reporting and who identified but failed to report the deficiency last year (either the participant, the participant's colleague whom they like and admire, or a colleague whom they neither like nor dislike). The results show that internal auditors are less likely to report an operational deficiency (versus a financial reporting deficiency) in the current year that was not reported last year. Further, internal auditors are less likely to report a control deficiency in the current year when they themselves or a colleague they like and admire (versus a colleague they feel neutral about) failed to report it last year.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".