Development of a conceptual methodology for periodic audit of accounting information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose of the research. The purpose of this article is to develop methodologies for the continuous control and auditing of financial and accounting information amidst the rapid advancement of hardware and software technologies that enable real-time electronic reporting. The research aims to describe modern technologies applicable to continuous auditing and data analysis, specifically to ensure the reliability of information generated by information systems. It distinctively examines the concept of “periodic audit” as an alternative to embedded control modules, deeming it particularly relevant for the Ukrainian context.Methods of the research. The article employs an analysis of current research and publications on realtime reporting and continuous auditing, referencing works by American and Canadian researchers and professional organizations (AICPA, CICA, Institute of Internal Auditors). It reviews theoretical frameworks for implementing continuous control and conceptual models of periodic audit. Electronic reporting standards, notably XBRL, and their implementation practices globally and in Ukraine are analyzed. Technologies for obtaining, verifying, loading, and analyzing data for periodic audit purposes are described, including statistical methods (trend analysis, regression analysis, cluster analysis, etc.). Data from surveys of Ukrainian enterprises regarding the online publication of financial statements are also utilized.Results of the research. The study demonstrates that while technology facilitates real-time reporting, it necessitates corresponding continuous control and auditing to assure information reliability. Traditional continuous audit approaches involving embedded control modules in ERP systems present significant drawbacks: risks to system stability, high implementation costs, and limited developer support. The concept of “periodic audit” is proposed as an alternative. This approach involves periodically (e.g., nightly) extracting transactions into a separate data warehouse for subsequent analysis using specialized audit software. This enables near-continuous assurance regarding information, irrespective of the effectiveness of the enterprise’s internal controls. A general model for acquiring data for periodic audit purposes is presented, encompassing data verification, correction, loading, and analysis stages. The primary goal of data analysis is identified as developing patterns to detect unexpected data or transactions indicative of fraud or errors.Possible application of the research results. The proposed “periodic audit” methodology can be applied by internal and independent auditors to provide near-continuous assurance regarding the reliability of financial and accounting information generated by corporate computer systems. This approach is particularly beneficial in environments with inadequate internal controls, such as in Ukraine. The technology is versatile for identifying significant internal control weaknesses across various conditions, enterprises, information systems, and business/accounting structures. The results can inform the enhancement of audit practices, improve financial reporting quality, and enable the timely detection of fraud and errors.Conclusions. Rapid technological development necessitates a shift towards continuous or near-continuous control of financial information. The “periodic audit” concept, involving regular analysis of data extracted to a separate warehouse, offers a practical and compromise alternative to embedded continuous control systems, especially where resources are limited or internal controls are weak. This approach allows auditors to provide timely assurance with minimal delay. Despite their advantages, continuous control and periodic audit systems have limitations, including the risk of failing to detect errors (false negatives) and generating false alarms (false positives). Successful implementation requires an understanding of business processes and appropriate internal control technologies. The periodic audit concept holds particular relevance for Ukraine, given the need to improve management and control practices.
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 | 0.034 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".