Management interview and follow up worksheet
Keep the interview account, the records examined and the unanswered question in separate fields. This worksheet helps an ESG review team preserve what management actually said, test a specific statement against identified records and give each remaining evidence request a responsible owner and agreed date.
The seven-page download contains instructions, four reusable blank sheets and a two-page fictional completed example. The editable DOCX uses ordinary text and tables; the matching PDF is for printing. Neither file records conversations, verifies documents, calculates a score, sends reminders or authorises a reporting decision.
Download the editable management interview and follow up worksheet (DOCX).
Download the print management interview and follow up worksheet (PDF).
Prepare a question with a usable boundary
On the session sheet, define the question, entity or site, period, decision it informs and limits of the work. List the participants by role, their connection to the process and the note taker. Record the agreed note recipients and storage location. A management interview does not supply the perspectives of workers, communities or other people affected by the activity.
Write an open starting prompt and the terms that need clarification. Ask what the participant knows firsthand, remembers from earlier involvement or has heard from someone else. If they refer to a document, record the reference and whether it has actually been examined. A file mentioned in conversation belongs in the request field until the reviewer can inspect it.
Give each substantive statement a record
Use one statement card for each proposition that could affect the review. Preserve a short attributed account with the speaker, interview time and note reference. Mark it as a faithful paraphrase or an exact quotation; do not put reconstructed wording in quotation marks. The separate knowledge-basis field distinguishes firsthand recollection, an account received from another person and a record the participant says they consulted.
Split compound statements when their scope or support differs. “Both locations checked the September files before handover” contains a population claim and a timing claim. Give each a question that a record could answer. The original statement remains visible even when the later evidence supports only a narrower description.
Keep a dated correction underneath the original account, with who supplied it and why. Confirmation that the notes accurately record the discussion belongs in the note-status field. It does not turn the account into a document-backed fact. An unconfirmed note is not an agreed statement, and silence is not confirmation.
Write the document backed fact at the right level
For each evidence check, record the exact file or system extract, version, date, locator, coverage and examination performed. Then write the narrow fact the inspected record supports. “Checklist CK7 records an East-site review dated 2 October” describes a document. It does not establish the quality of that review, the completeness of every file or the position at the West site.
The PCAOB audit-evidence standard treats inquiry as one procedure and cautions that company personnel’s answers alone are insufficient for its specified audit conclusions. That financial-audit context does not prescribe this advisory worksheet.
Use the comparison field to explain whether the inspected record supports part of the account, differs from it or leaves the question unanswered. Record any concern about origin, alteration or meaning as unresolved and route it to the appropriate person. A document-backed description still needs the limits of the examination; this worksheet does not authenticate files or provide independent assurance.
Follow the fictional water file interview
All organisations, roles, records and dates in the download are invented. At Rowan Components, the review question is what supports a finance coordinator’s recollection that both East and West September water files were checked before the 1 October reporting handover. The exercise concerns evidence of a review event, not water quantities or compliance.
The retained handover entry H7 names both sites and is dated 1 October. Checklist CK7 records an East-site review dated 2 October. Its scope box says East only. Message M4, dated 30 September, records West review pending. These miniature records are included in the example so another reader can repeat the comparison without unseen attachments.
The coordinator then corrects the account: they remember the later East review and cannot establish West’s review date. The statement card retains both the original recollection and the correction. The evidence card records the CK7 date and East-only scope; it does not rewrite the original account or infer that a West review never happened.
Request R1 asks for any earlier East review record and the basis for its date. R2 asks the West records owner for the relevant review record, or a response identifying what was searched and what remains unavailable. Each request has an owner and agreed due date. The open question stays visible while either response is pending.
At the illustrated cut-off, the East owner has supplied CK7 again and says no earlier record was located. R1 is received and reviewed, while evidence of an East review before handover remains unestablished. R2 has no response by the cut-off. That is an unanswered request, not proof that the West review did not occur.
Close the request and the question separately
The follow-up sheet records a request state and a question outcome. Received means the response arrived. Reviewed means the stated examination happened. Resolved requires a recorded answer within the agreed scope and the reviewer’s basis for it. If the work ends with unavailable evidence, record a handover with a limitation; do not mark the underlying proposition true or false merely to clear the list.
Before the meeting ends, read back the important account, definitions and requests. Ask the owner to agree a date and time zone. If no date is agreed, leave that fact visible and assign the scheduling follow-up. If an issue may need urgent operational or specialist attention, use the agreed escalation route immediately rather than waiting for the worksheet’s administrative deadline.
At handover, identify the exact worksheet version, the notes confirmed or still disputed, the documents examined, open questions and who must act next. Retain the source records in authorised storage. Use role names or coded references where possible and avoid putting unnecessary personal, medical or complaint details into a general interview pack.
Use the worksheet with the relevant companion
The management-interview guide helps plan the conversation. The question-led diligence guide helps decide which records to request. The findings guide helps write a bounded review result. Use the management sign-off checklist separately when an authorised decision about a release is needed.
Reference checked 15 October 2026: Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, AS 1105 Audit Evidence, paragraph .17. Copyright PCAOB. The cited standard is financial-audit context, not an ESG interview mandate or endorsement of this worksheet.
Version 1.0. Original Nitium Advisory worksheet, illustration and fictional exercise. Adapt the working fields to the agreed review. This pack is not a worker-interview procedure, investigation protocol, legal finding, prescribed reporting form or independent assurance conclusion.
Comments