The Impact of Trade Secrecy Protection on Audit Pricing
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
Because auditors have access to corporate information, a firm’s decision to protect material trade secrets should, in principle, not influence audit effort. We analyze the effects of trade secrecy protection on the audit fees, documenting that firms with redacted information pay significantly higher fees than those that do not redact information. In cross-sectional tests, we further document that the relationship between redaction and audit fees is significantly influenced by both auditor and client characteristics. Consistent with the premise that redaction increases the complexity of the audit—particularly if auditors view redacted disclosures as indicators of potential business or litigation risk—the regression results indicate that the main effect is moderated by auditor factors such as specialization, tenure, and quality, as well as client factors like existing relationships, bargaining power, and reporting quality. These insights contribute to ongoing discussions in audit policy by illustrating how confidential disclosure practices affect audit effort and costs. Overall, our results inform policymakers seeking to reconcile firms’ proprietary information protection with public interest in transparent and credible financial reporting.
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 | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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