Audit Central is the engagement file your firm actually wants — planning to archival in one workspace, with four-eyes sign-offs, derived status, and an immutable trail that holds up in peer review.
A purpose-built platform for chartered accountants to plan, execute, review, and complete statutory audits — with the firm's policies and segregation of duties enforced by the software, not by convention.
Spreadsheets, shared drives, e-mail approvals, and "final_v7_signed.xlsx" make a poor audit file. Audit Central keeps every client, engagement, working paper, and review note in one connected workspace — each user sees and does only what their role on that engagement allows.
The defining idea is derived state: a phase reflects its least-progressed task, and an engagement's status and stage are computed from the tasks below — so the partner's dashboard always tells the truth about where work really stands.
Every control in Audit Central maps to something the SAs already ask you to do — we just enforce it instead of leaving it to discipline.
Engagement Partner, Reviewer, and Member responsibilities are role-locked. The reviewer must outrank the preparer, and no one can sign off on their own work.
Working papers, evidence attachments, review notes and sign-offs sit inside the engagement file — assembled and retained, not scattered across drives and inboxes.
Engagement templates pre-populate audit areas and tasks so the team starts from a consistent, risk-aware programme — and refines it for the specific client.
Review notes raised against tasks must be resolved before sign-off, so misstatements and observations are tracked to closure rather than mentally noted.
Prepared and Reviewed states exist only via sign-off action, with timestamped attribution — your "who approved this and when" question has one answer.
Immutable activity logs, no hard deletes, and partner-only archival keep the engagement file inspection-ready for ICAI peer review, QRB, or NFRA scrutiny.
The building blocks a CA firm needs to manage statutory engagements with control.
Global admin vs. user, with Partner, Reviewer, and Member assigned per engagement. Switch "Acting as" and watch permissions change in real time.
Clients hold engagements; each engagement runs through five fixed phases broken into audit areas and tasks — your firm's audit programme, on rails.
Members complete task-level working papers and attach supporting documents — evidence stays tied to the audit area it supports, where reviewers expect to find it.
Reviewers raise notes against specific tasks. Open notes block sign-off — review becomes a gate, not an afterthought scribbled in the margin.
Preparer ≠ reviewer, and the reviewer must outrank the preparer. Both rules are enforced centrally — no engagement can quietly skip them.
Computed cards and a donut show real-time status, stage, and progress across the portfolio — every number derived, never manually typed.
Four design choices that quietly do the heavy lifting on every engagement.
Choosing an engagement type pre-populates the standard audit areas and tasks for that engagement — the team starts from a consistent baseline instead of a blank file.
Prepared and Reviewed cannot be set by hand. They are only reached when a preparer or reviewer signs off — and the sign-off is timestamped and attributed.
A phase equals its least-progressed task. Engagement status and stage are computed up the hierarchy automatically. Status reflects reality, not optimism.
Four-eyes, seniority, review-note gates, and partner-only archival are enforced centrally. Every action is logged immutably, with nothing hard-deleted.
Six ordered statuses, shared by tasks and phases. Prepared and Reviewed are reachable only via sign-off.
A clear path through the engagement — exactly the steps a CA firm already follows, with the controls baked in.
Create the client and open the statutory audit engagement. The chosen engagement type pre-populates audit areas and tasks for the period.
Assign partner, reviewers, and article/staff members, and refine the working papers the engagement requires for this client.
The preparer completes working papers, attaches supporting documents and queries with the client, and signs off to mark the task Prepared.
The reviewer raises review notes on the task. Once every note is closed by the preparer, the reviewer signs off to mark it Reviewed.
With all tasks reviewed, the partner marks the engagement Completed. The phase bar and dashboard recompute live.
The partner archives the engagement file. Nothing is hard-deleted — a complete, defensible record sits ready for peer review or regulator scrutiny.
Designed for CA firms, with structure that suits any review-heavy attestation engagement.
The outcomes a partner cares about — built into the way the work is done, not bolted on later.
Derived phase and engagement status remove guesswork and "I think we're done" updates.
Four-eyes and seniority rules prevent self-review by design, not by reminder.
Engagement templates pre-build audit areas and tasks, so teams start in minutes.
Immutable logs and no hard deletes keep you peer-review-ready at all times.
Live dashboards and charts show exactly where every engagement stands.
Role-locked actions and attributed sign-offs make ownership unambiguous.
Fixed phases and statuses standardise the firm's audit approach across all clients.
Sign-off gates and note checks stop tasks advancing before they actually should.
Short answers to the things every audit firm wants to know before adopting a new platform.
Every action — task creation, document attachment, review note, sign-off, status change — is captured in an immutable activity log with timestamp and user. Nothing is hard-deleted, sign-offs cannot be back-dated, and the reviewer-outranks-preparer rule is enforced centrally. That is exactly the chain of custody a peer reviewer or QRB inspector looks for.
Each engagement assigns a Partner, one or more Reviewers, and Members. A task can only be marked Prepared by a Member who is not also the Reviewer, and only marked Reviewed by a Reviewer who outranks the preparer. The app blocks sign-off if either rule is about to be broken — there is no override switch.
Yes. The engagement type pre-populates the standard audit areas and tasks, but the partner can refine the working programme for the specific client — adding, removing, or splitting tasks before work begins.
Engagements are scoped per user. Articles and members see only the engagements they are assigned to; reviewers see the engagements they review; partners see their portfolio. Global admins manage tenancy and master data.
The partner archives it. Archived engagements stay in the tenant as read-only, retaining every working paper, attachment, review note, and sign-off — accessible during future peer review or inspection without any restoration step.
Audit Central is multi-tenant by design — each firm's clients, engagements, files, and users are isolated at the data layer. Speak to us for hosting options (managed cloud or your own infrastructure).
Audit Central turns the messy reality of statutory audit work into a single, rule-driven engagement file. Roles, sign-offs, and derived status are enforced; the immutable trail is automatic. The result: faster engagements, cleaner quality review, and files that hold up when someone asks.