CPA and audit
For a CPA or audit practice, the record of what was checked, by whom, and against what version of the data is not paperwork attached to the work. It is the work. This page sets out how an engagement's chain of custody would be planned and run on inTheEU Assist, not a record of a completed deployment.
Where Assist fits in the workflow
Each client engagement would be set up as its own isolated case, with its own documents, knowledge pack, and reviewers. Nothing from one engagement, a working paper, a flagged discrepancy, an engagement-specific adapter, is visible to or reusable within another engagement.
Document analysis and discrepancy flags would be proposed by an agent configured for the engagement, each one hashed to the source document it was drawn from. A generated report or working paper would carry the signature of the agent, the skill that produced it, and the reviewing professional, not just a timestamp in a shared log.
Human authority and operating boundaries
A flagged discrepancy would move from proposed to reviewed to approved or rejected, never auto-applied. A generated report would require the reviewing partner's explicit sign-off before it is treated as final. That sign-off is signed and permanently attached to the engagement record, not a checkbox in a separate system.
A first bounded pilot
A practical pilot can use one engagement, one working-paper class, one applicable procedure or standard supplied by the practice, and a limited set of client documents. Assist can review extracted material, prepare a reconciliation, exception list, evidence table or draft working paper, and route it to a named reviewer. Nothing posts to the client's books and no audit conclusion is generated autonomously.
The practice can compare the pilot with its current process using preparation time, exceptions correctly surfaced, false positives, reviewer adjustments, evidence traceability, repeatability and completeness of sign-off. The result is an operational evaluation on real practice material, while professional scepticism, materiality, standard interpretation and the final opinion remain with the CPA or auditor.
What is available for a pilot
Per-engagement isolation, reviewed document extraction, proposed-to-approved flags and outputs, reusable engagement templates, and traceable execution and sign-off records are working parts of the platform. What is not supplied as an off-the-shelf claim is an accounting-standard interpretation or automated audit opinion. The practice's partners and reviewers remain the professional authority throughout; the platform makes the work and review sequence easier to reconstruct and govern.
Some of the architecture underlying this capability set is documented in filings still in progress. This page describes what the platform is designed to do, at a level appropriate for planning a pilot, not an implementation specification.
Bring one engagement workflow
If your practice can define one recurring working-paper or evidence-review process, its approved sources and the reviewer responsible for sign-off, we can assess it as a bounded pilot without automating the professional opinion. Discuss the workflow and its success criteria →
Platform features and interface are subject to continuous improvement. Descriptions in this guide may not reflect the exact layout or wording of the latest released version.