Practice guide / Accounting firms
Make the work easier to review.
A useful accounting AI trial produces a better preparation or review step: a clear evidence gap, a traceable proposal, a checked comparison, or a draft the responsible accountant can assess. Keep the client, entity, period, service, and source attached to the work. Measure the correction effort as carefully as the preparation time.
Choose a preparation task
The output should help an accountant check the work.
Start where a bounded task can produce something a reviewer can compare with original evidence. Language models can assist with interpretation and drafting; established calculation and accounting systems should supply exact values. A source-linked proposal remains a proposal until the responsible professional accepts its use in the engagement.
- Receipt is not completeness
- A folder containing documents does not prove that every required record is present, belongs to the right entity, or covers the right period.
- Agreement is not correctness
- A balanced schedule can still contain the wrong classification, cut-off, policy, or source population. Reconciliation and professional review answer different questions.
- Preparation is not release
- An accepted draft does not grant authority to post a journal, submit a return, issue a report, send advice, or move money.
Four reviewable opportunities
Specify the artifact before choosing the tool.
These are possible trial designs. Their suitability depends on engagement scope, available evidence, professional requirements, and the firm's approved tools. None assumes unattended posting, filing, or client communication.
Prepare a targeted records request
01Useful task: Identify what is missing without making the client repeat work already supplied.
- Starting situation
- An engagement team has a defined evidence list but receives inconsistent filenames, duplicate uploads, and partial responses.
- Required evidence
- Approved request list, client/entity/period identifiers, received-file manifest, prior requests, and permitted source documents.
- Assisted preparation
- Suggest document-to-request matches, flag possible duplicates or period mismatches, and draft a focused clarification for staff review.
- Accountant retains
- The preparer decides whether a document satisfies the request and which further evidence is needed; authorized staff approve the message.
- Review packet
- A request-by-request status with source links, unresolved gaps, and a reviewed client draft.
- Stop and investigate
- A document's title appears relevant but its entity, date range, or contents do not establish coverage. Receipt must not silently become acceptance.
- Trial measure
- Compare repeat requests, incorrectly closed gaps, client clarification rounds, and staff time through accepted evidence collection.
Assemble a reconciliation investigation
02Useful task: Give the reviewer a traceable explanation of candidate matches and unresolved differences.
- Starting situation
- Staff need to investigate differences between an approved ledger population and a corresponding schedule or statement.
- Required evidence
- Versioned source populations, entity, period, currency, identifiers, opening/closing positions, and the firm's matching rules.
- Assisted preparation
- Use deterministic code for totals and exact checks. Let AI suggest explanations or candidate relationships with cited records; preserve unmatched and conflicting items.
- Accountant retains
- The accountant accepts matches, accounting treatment, adjustments, and unresolved differences. Journal approval and posting remain separate controls.
- Review packet
- A reproducible comparison with population checks, proposed links, source values, and explicit differences before and after review.
- Stop and investigate
- A missing population, duplicated item, changed currency, or forced match makes the schedule appear reconciled when the evidence is incomplete.
- Trial measure
- Compare accepted matches, missed exceptions, wrong matches, reviewer corrections, and total time to a reviewed reconciliation.
Prepare a technical research note
03Useful task: Organize applicable source material and open questions for professional analysis.
- Starting situation
- A defined accounting or tax question needs current authoritative references and a clear account of the facts still missing.
- Required evidence
- Question, client facts, jurisdiction, reporting or tax period, applicable framework, and approved primary reference sources.
- Assisted preparation
- Locate candidate passages, summarize their stated scope, and separate source text, interpretation, assumptions, and unresolved questions.
- Accountant retains
- A qualified professional checks authority, effective dates, applicability, exceptions, and the eventual conclusion or advice.
- Review packet
- A source-linked note with verified citations, relevant dates, alternative interpretations, and the preparer's outstanding questions.
- Stop and investigate
- A valid citation belongs to another jurisdiction or period, a source is superseded, or the summary omits a condition that changes its application.
- Trial measure
- Compare citation validity, missed applicable conditions, unsupported conclusions, and professional review time on comparable questions.
Draft a client explanation from checked figures
04Useful task: Turn an accepted schedule into a clear draft without inventing the reasons behind a movement.
- Starting situation
- The figures and scope have been reviewed, but staff still need to prepare an understandable explanation or meeting brief.
- Required evidence
- Accepted figures, approved variance calculations, reporting period, known explanatory evidence, intended audience, and engagement scope.
- Assisted preparation
- Draft commentary that links each number to the schedule, distinguishes known causes from questions, and preserves qualifications supplied by the accountant.
- Accountant retains
- The engagement owner accepts the interpretation, tone, advice, disclosures, and release to the intended recipient.
- Review packet
- A marked draft with figure references, evidence for causal claims, open questions, and a record of reviewer changes.
- Stop and investigate
- A plausible narrative turns correlation into cause, removes uncertainty, mixes clients, or introduces advice outside the engagement.
- Trial measure
- Compare factual corrections, omitted qualifications, revision rounds, and total effort through approval of the client-ready draft.
Different service, different responsibility
Do not carry one approval across the whole practice.
The same technology can sit inside very different professional services. This is a design comparison, not a statement of the legal or professional rules in every jurisdiction. Confirm the actual engagement and applicable requirements with qualified owners.
| Work area | Possible assistance | Not established by AI | Responsible decision | Evidence before use |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Practice administration | Organize requests and draft reminders | Engagement acceptance or sufficient records | Staff approve scope, status, and communication | Correct client, period, request and recipient |
| Bookkeeping preparation | Suggest matches or classifications | Correct treatment or authority to post | Accountant reviews; authorized user posts | Source values, exact checks, exceptions and approval |
| Advisory reporting | Draft explanations from checked schedules | Cause, forecast certainty or management decision | Engagement owner accepts interpretation | Reconciled figures and support for each explanation |
| Tax research | Prepare a cited issue note | Applicable treatment or filing readiness | Qualified tax professional assesses the case | Jurisdiction, period, current authority and complete facts |
| Audit support | Assist an approved procedure's preparation | Sufficient appropriate evidence or audit conclusion | Audit team applies its approved methodology | Tool validation, permitted use and documented professional review |
| External release | Assemble an approved deliverable | Authority to sign, file, send or pay | Designated authorized person releases | Exact approved version, destination and required receipt |
Run a useful trial
Measure through review, not just through generation.
Choose one service, one task, and a defined set of eligible cases. Compare the existing process with the assisted process using the same acceptance criteria.
- 01
Define the engagement boundary
Name the service, client cohort, entity and period rules, professional owner, approved data, and permitted output. Decide which actions are outside the trial.
- 02
Inspect the source and tool path
Confirm population quality, access separation, provider terms, retention, and any client permissions required. Use synthetic or appropriately de-identified material for early testing where suitable.
- 03
Build the review packet
Specify source links, exact calculations, assumptions, exceptions, proposed output, and reviewer decisions. Make it possible to inspect the work without trusting the generated explanation.
- 04
Test the difficult cases
Include wrong entities, missing periods, duplicate records, stale guidance, changed totals, and plausible unsupported explanations. Check that staff can detect and resolve them without excessive rescue work.
- 05
Accept or revise the trial
Compare total preparation and review effort, quality failures, unresolved cases, and later corrections. Expand only after the responsible owner accepts the evidence and operating limits.
Practice controls
A reviewer needs evidence and enough time to use it.
ICAEW and FRC guidance informs the professional and audit context here. The proposed implementation controls need validation against the firm's actual services and local obligations.
- Separate clients and engagements
- Scope retrieval, files, logs, and outputs to the correct client and engagement. Check access in the application; a client name in a prompt is not an access boundary.
- Keep financial facts reproducible
- Preserve source values and corrections separately. Calculate totals, comparisons, currencies, and control checks through tested code or the established accounting system.
- Make review substantive
- Provide original evidence, known limits, and visible changes. Assign competent reviewers with time to challenge the output; clicking approve is not proof that professional judgment occurred.
- Assess ethics and independence
- Evaluate confidentiality, competence, objectivity, and applicable independence restrictions before introducing the tool or offering technology services to an audit client. A separate team does not automatically resolve a prohibited service.
Before approving a tool
Ask what the firm must still be able to explain.
The answers depend on service scope and jurisdiction. These questions help define the technical and operating evidence to bring to the responsible professionals.
- Can we use a public AI tool with client documents?
- Do not assume that access to a tool makes that use permitted. Establish the firm's policy, confidentiality duties, required permissions, provider terms, data handling, and retention before supplying client information. Use approved environments and the minimum necessary data.
- Does every accounting workflow need an agent?
- No. Fixed calculations, deterministic checks, search, or a single drafting step may be sufficient. Adaptive tool use adds permissions and recovery questions; introduce it only when a defined task needs that flexibility.
- Can the same trial cover audit and bookkeeping?
- Not under one assumed acceptance rule. Audit work must fit the audit firm's methodology and applicable standards. The FRC's March 2026 guidance distinguishes deficient output, misuse of output, and non-compliant methodology: a correct output alone does not establish a suitable audit procedure.
- How should we handle research about tax or standards?
- Treat the generated note as preparation. Verify every relied-on citation in the authoritative source, establish effective dates and jurisdiction, and have a qualified professional assess applicability to complete client facts. Do not let a fluent summary become the advice by default.
- What would make the trial unsuccessful?
- More correction effort, missed exceptions, unsupported conclusions, cross-client exposure, or poor review visibility can outweigh faster preparation. Keep those outcomes in the comparison and narrow or stop the trial when the evidence does not support continued use.
Source basis
Sources behind the control model.
- 01
ICAEW
Using generative AIProfessional guidance on approved use, data handling, and checking jurisdiction-specific outputs. Used for these controls, not its product-specific descriptions.
- 02
ICAEW
Generative AI and ethicsEthical context for confidentiality, competence, objectivity, and professional review; no model-training claims are adopted.
- 03
ICAEW Professional Standards Department
Artificial intelligence in audit work: managing the risks6 May 2026 guidance for audit firms in ICAEW's regulatory context, including policies, training, and oversight. Not a universal rule for all accounting services.
- 04
Financial Reporting Council
Generative and Agentic AI GuidanceMarch 2026 UK audit guidance for central technical teams. Distinguishes output deficiencies, misuse, and methodology risks; the four task designs here are Werkon's illustrative analysis.
- 05
IESBA
Technology-related revisions to the CodePrimary pronouncement on technology, ethics, and independence. Confirm the currently adopted code and local requirements for the actual engagement.
Start with one real workflow
A Systems Audit is the usual starting point. If the opportunity is already clear, we can move directly into a focused build.
Show Us the WorkflowStart with the free automation readiness checklistOBSERVEQUANTIFYDECIDEBUILD