# Synthetic close-review evidence packet

All invoice values, periods, documents and review actions are fictional. No actual journal, controller approval, audit or product test has occurred.

A simplified two-period allocation exposes a draft error and shows the evidence needed to resolve it through the existing close process.

| Evidence item | Invented case content | What it establishes |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Source TEST-INV-01 | Total 12,000; assumed allocation June 9,000 and July 3,000. | The stipulated facts for this teaching example, not a real accounting determination. |
| Draft TEST-AI-01 | Proposes 12,000 as June expense. | The specific generated statement requiring review. |
| Review TEST-REV-01 | Compare draft with the assumed period allocation; identify a 3,000 mismatch. | An example of the check that would need actual reviewer evidence. |
| Revised workpaper TEST-WP-01 | June 9,000; July 3,000, under the exercise assumptions. | The illustrative correction and its source reference. |
| Approval and posting | No live approval or posting occurs in this exercise. | Use the existing authorised close process for a real decision. |
| Security evidence | Input-control evaluation is separate and not run here. | A policy event would address the tested data path, not financial correctness. |

## Review steps

- Name the control objective: Identify the financial-reporting risk and the existing preparation, review and approval responsibilities.
- Retain the decision trail: Link source facts, material AI draft, review checks, exceptions and the final supported workpaper.
- Keep evidence meanings distinct: Do not substitute an AI usage or DLP event for accounting review or auditor testing.

## Simplified financial fixture

Invoice reference: TEST-INV-01
Total in invented currency units: 12000
Assumed June amount: 9000
Assumed July amount: 3000
AI draft statement: all 12000 belongs in June
Review discrepancy: 3000 does not match the stipulated period allocation

The allocation is an exercise assumption, not accounting advice. No real invoice or accounting record is represented.

## Review-note example

“Under the exercise assumptions, the draft’s June amount conflicts with the source allocation. Revise the workpaper to show 9000 for June and 3000 for July, retain the source reference and follow the normal approval process.”

This is authored example wording, not a completed human review.

## Source and scope

Guide: https://aona.ai/resources/guides/sox-ai-financial-close-evidence/

Source check: 21 September 2026. General information, not professional approval or a completed control test.

- PCAOB AS 2201: Audit of internal control over financial reporting: https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS2201