Independent review handover checklist
Give the reviewer a question they can replay, the exact evidence versions to use and a clear route for returning exceptions. This checklist turns a handover into a documented exchange: what was sent, what the recipient could open, what they tested and what remains unresolved.
The editable seven-page document contains instructions, four reusable form pages and a two-page fictional example. Use the DOCX to expand fields or duplicate records; use the PDF for printing. It contains no macros, automated calculations or automatic conclusions. The team must complete the records and agree the review scope with its recipient.
Download the editable checklist (DOCX).
Download the print checklist (PDF).
Write one testable assertion
Start with the specific statement under review. Include its disclosure version and page, the entity or site, reporting period, unit and agreed criterion. “Check electricity” leaves the reviewer guessing. “Reconcile the two named billed consumption entries to the Site Cedar disclosure for April to June 2026” defines a bounded task.
List exclusions beside that task. A replay of two entries does not establish that every meter or invoice was captured. Record whether completeness testing, authenticity checks, estimation choices or other procedures are outside scope. The checklist documents an agreed review exchange; it does not appoint an independent provider or establish anyone’s independence, eligibility or professional qualification.
Build a versioned route through the packet
Give the handover packet an ID and version. In its manifest, record each item’s ID, filename, version, date, role and precise locator. Identify the draft assertion, supporting records and calculation separately. If a controlled link shows only the latest file, add a stable version reference or preserve the agreed snapshot so the recipient can identify the material actually examined.
The replay sheet asks for the operation, expected result and permitted tolerance before the reviewer records their observation. Use an agreed tolerance and explain its basis; do not introduce one after seeing a difference. For a narrative assertion, write the expected evidence condition and the exact passage to examine instead of forcing a numerical test.
Record sending and receiving separately
The coordinator records the authorised recipient, transfer channel, timestamp, message reference and manifest count. Use approved access arrangements and the minimum necessary permissions. Keep confidential links and personal records out of any public copy. The recipient then acknowledges the packet version and records which individual items opened, which were missing and which displayed an unexpected version.
Keep a blocked access item open even when its filename appears in the folder. Record the error, affected assertion, action owner and agreed response time. Restoring access to the same version changes the access record. Replacing its contents changes the evidence packet and requires an identified revision. Neither a successful send nor a complete receipt establishes the correctness of the assertion.
Try the fictional replay
The example packet HAND-07 v1 contains four named items. Two invented billed consumption records show 48,600 and 51,400 kWh. Calculation C1 v3 adds them to 100,000 kWh. Draft disclosure D1 v2 states 101,000 kWh. The agreed task is a direct tie-out of those two records, with no rounding tolerance; the two-page example supplies the miniature records needed to repeat the arithmetic.
On first receipt, the reviewer opens three of four items. S2 v2 returns an access-denied message, so the reviewer records “blocked” for the replay. The coordinator restores access to that same version and records a second receipt. All four items now open, but the disclosure discrepancy still exists.
The reviewer calculates 48,600 + 51,400 = 100,000 kWh and records that D1 v2 exceeds the replayed total by 1,000 kWh. Exception X01 names the assertion, both conflicting locators, the observed difference and the requested response. It does not claim that actual electricity use was misstated by that amount, because the exercise tests supplied entries and their presentation.
A later packet, HAND-07 v2, replaces only D1 with version 3 showing 100,000 kWh. The worked return retains X01 and the first receipt, identifies the replacement and records the reviewer’s repeat check. The exception can close for the stated tie-out while the exclusions remain unchanged. The handover record makes no release decision or assurance conclusion.
Check the return before closing the exchange
Use the document’s final checks: does every assertion lead to named evidence versions and exact locators; can the recipient open those versions; is the procedure and tolerance clear; does each exception identify what was observed and what remains needed; and is any later replacement linked to a repeat check? Leave unperformed work visibly unperformed.
The reviewer’s return should state who performed the work, when, on which packet, and with which limitations. An owner’s response is recorded separately from the reviewer’s disposition. If the response changes a calculation or an estimate, keep its substantive decision in the relevant change or estimation record and reference it here.
For evidence-folder organisation, use the evidence handover guide. For wording a supported observation or an unresolved inconsistency, use the review findings guide.
Version 1.0. This is an original optional working aid, with an entirely fictional example. It is not an assurance standard, prescribed engagement format, independence certification or compliance determination. Adapt it to the agreed scope and the reviewer’s own requirements.
Comments