ACCTG 521 Assessment

Client Interviews

Team Deliverable (30%)

Assessment Overview

Teams will meet with the instructor and conduct a simulated Client Meeting in class. Teams will present only to the instructor, and are required to only attend their time slot. A pre-meeting memo is due before the meeting and a post-meeting memo is due after the meeting.

Required Deliverables

Deliverable Due Date Canvas Submission Portal
Pre-meeting Memo 10/27 (11:59PM) Upload to Canvas (one submission per team)
Simulated Meeting 10/28 (in class) No Canvas Submission Required
Post-meeting Memo 10/29 (11:59PM) Upload to Canvas (one submission per team)

Deliverable Details and Hints

Further details are provided below for each required deliverable.

Required deliverable: Following the in-class Helix analysis and prior to the simulated meeting, document the following in a 1/2 to 1 page memo addressed to Bill Titera, titled "Pre-Interview Update on PSU Audit":

  • A very brief introduction of the purpose of the memo (hint: to highlight any concerns arising from the audit of PSU Hotel).
  • A succinct description of the main concerns arising from the audit.
  • A discussion of the controls that the team is going to assess in the Client Interview.

  • You can use sub-headings if you would like to separate accounts or controls that are more important.
  • Do not exceed the single page requirement. If you run out of space, conclude the memo stating that additional concerns or controls have also been identified, but the most important ones have been listed above.

Required deliverable: Following the Audit Analytics class, each group will meet with the instructor individually to simulate a meeting with the client to follow-up on issues raised during the audit. Students will play the audit team assigned to undertake an initial control walkthrough meeting with the client. Consider the following key elements of the meeting:

  • The key learning objective is to be able to effectively communicate in a professional setting, including asking the right questions, obtaining necessary information in the midst of time constraints, incorporating evidence to focus the conversation, and avoiding or resolving conflict respectfully.
  • There is a strict time limit for the meeting similar to how there are time constraints in the real world. Do your best to not go overtime.
  • Each team will be assigned a time slot, and the interview will be recorded for my later review, students only attend their time and do not observe the meetings of the other teams.

  • I will reveal which character I will play in the interview at the conclusion of the Helix case. Assume that you have interacted with the client before, and you know of my character, but we have not met before.
  • Assume that the hotel is part of a portfolio of hotels owned by a publicly traded company. That is, this is the audit of a public company subject to SOX 404 reporting and PCAOB inspections.
  • Consider how you would make use of the Helix tool, or findings from that analysis, when talking with the client.
  • There is a strict time limit for the meeting (similar to how there are time constraints in the real world).
  • Before the client interview, meet with your group to discuss your approach to the meeting. Consider roles and responsibilities of each person during the meeting, how you will approach the client and the issues you hope to get resolved, and how you plan on resolving conflict with the client if it occurs.

Required deliverable: Following the client interview on Oct 29, document the following in a 1/2 to 1 page memo addressed to Bill Titera, titled "Post-Interview Update on PSU Audit":

  • A discussion of your findings regarding the internal controls of PSU Hotel.
  • What additional documentation, if any, is needed for the completion of the testing of controls over financial reporting.
  • If you have an estimate of the potential effect on revenue or net income of the control weaknesses (i.e., extent of potential misstatement), include that amount. (If not, don't stress about this requirement.)
  • A conclusion stating clearly whether your team's assessment of PSU Hotels points to either a material weakness or significant deficiency in any controls over financial reporting, and if so, which specific control (or controls) has the weakness or deficiency.

  • You can use sub-headings if you would like to separate accounts or controls that are more important.
  • Use Auditing Standard AS 2201 to help consider the indicators of control weaknesses (sections .69 to .70) and the distinction between material weaknesses and deficiencies (see .62-.70 for deficiencies and .90-.93 for material weaknesses).
  • Do not exceed the single page requirement. If you run out of space, conclude the memo stating that additional risks have also been identified, but the most important ones have been listed above.

Generative AI Policy

This policy outlines expectations for the responsible and ethical use of generative AI technologies, including large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT, in this course. These tools can significantly enhance learning, productivity, and creativity–but must be used transparently and professionally to support a respectful and effective learning environment.

Permitted Use:

Generative AI may be used to assist with idea generation, research, document drafting, programming, editing, and other academic work, provided the output is critically reviewed, refined, and understood by the student or team. Use of AI is encouraged when it enhances the learning process.

Student Responsibility:

Students are responsible for the accuracy, relevance, and integrity of any work submitted, including content influenced or generated by AI tools. Errors introduced by generative AI–factual, analytical, or interpretive–will be treated as student errors and may result in reduced grades.

Disclosure & Ethics:

Students may be asked to disclose when and how they used generative AI tools in individual or team assignments. In cases where the use of AI significantly contributes to the submission (e.g., coding assistance, text drafting), students should include a brief statement describing the use.

Unacceptable Use:

Submitting AI–generated content without understanding it, using AI to bypass individual learning (e.g., for comprehension–based quizzes or in–class polls), or allowing AI to make up sources or misrepresent work is a violation of course expectations and academic integrity.

This policy may be updated as the role of AI in education continues to evolve.