By Vincent Howard, CPA | Managing Partner, Howard, Howard and Hodges | SkillAbility for Accounting Firms
Last updated: July 2026 | 14-minute read
Every CPA firm owner has felt this problem.
The work comes in for review.
The manager opens the file.
The reconciliation is technically complete, but the documentation is weak.
The workpaper ties, but no one can tell what was done.
The client question was answered, but the explanation has to be rewritten.
The same issue that appeared last month appears again.
The manager starts reviewing and ends up editing, correcting, teaching, and sometimes redoing the work.
That is where the training problem becomes visible.
Not in a staff meeting.
Not in a CPE transcript.
Not in a job description.
In the review notes.
The goal is not fewer review notes because managers lower their standards. The goal is fewer review notes because staff submit better work.
Who I Am and Why You Should Listen
I’ve been in public accounting since 1990. I founded my own firm in 1993, merged it in 2001 to form Howard, Howard and Hodges, and grew it from three people to 50 staff across four locations and multiple states. Our firm was named PASBA Firm of the Year.
I know what it feels like when review turns into rework.
You think you are reviewing for judgment, risk, quality, and client impact. Then you realize you are fixing formatting, rewriting unclear explanations, chasing missing support, answering the same questions, and leaving the same review notes you left last month.
That is not how managers should be used.
Managers should protect standards, review judgment, coach patterns, and help staff develop. They should not become full-time editors for work that was never really review-ready.
Since 2020, I’ve built and run a structured workforce development platform that more than a thousand accounting professionals across dozens of PASBA member firms have moved through. The lesson is clear: review notes decrease when firms train staff to understand what review-ready work looks like before live client work exposes the gap.
Why This Matters Now
CPA firm capacity is already strained. Firms need managers reviewing higher-value work, supporting advisory conversations, training future leaders, and protecting client relationships.
But in many firms, manager capacity gets swallowed by repeated review notes.
This is not just annoying.
It is expensive.
Every unnecessary review note represents time, delay, interruption, rework, and lost confidence. Multiply that across clients, staff, deadlines, and repeated months, and review-note drag becomes a capacity problem.
Quality standards matter. The point is not to skip review. AICPA quality management resources describe the standards as a proactive, risk-based approach to driving quality performance within CPA firms. That quality mindset is the right one.
But quality review should not become a substitute for basic staff readiness.
The question is not, “How do we get managers to write better notes?”
The better question is:
Why is so much work reaching review before it is actually review-ready?
1. Review Notes Are Where Weak Training Becomes Expensive
Review notes are not the enemy.
Good review notes protect quality. They teach judgment. They identify risk. They help staff improve. They make the firm better.
The problem is not review notes themselves.
The problem is repeated, preventable, basic review notes that show the same training gaps over and over again.
Those notes are telling you something.
They are telling you staff do not understand the standard.
They are telling you the workflow was not learned.
They are telling you documentation habits are weak.
They are telling you staff do not know what the reviewer needs to see.
They are telling you managers are being used as the training system.
| Review Note Pattern | What It Usually Signals | What It Costs the Firm |
|---|---|---|
| Missing support | Staff do not know documentation expectations | Reviewer has to chase evidence or reconstruct work |
| Unclear explanations | Staff completed the task but did not explain the reasoning | Manager becomes editor instead of reviewer |
| Repeated technical errors | Training did not create durable understanding | Same issue consumes review time again |
| Poor open-item tracking | Staff do not understand workflow ownership | Deadlines slow and managers follow up manually |
| No escalation judgment | Staff do not know when to ask, solve, or flag risk | Review becomes the first time the issue is discovered |
The review process is where weak development becomes measurable.
If the same issue appears again and again, that is not a note problem.
That is a system problem.
2. The Wrong Conclusion: “Our Staff Just Need to Pay Closer Attention”
Sometimes that is true.
Some review notes happen because someone rushed, skipped a step, or did not slow down enough to check their work.
But if the same review notes keep appearing across people, clients, or months, “pay closer attention” is too shallow.
Repeated review notes usually point to something deeper:
- Unclear standards
- Inconsistent workflow training
- Weak documentation habits
- Too much learning on live client work
- No examples of review-ready work
- No feedback loop before the work reaches the manager
- Staff who do not understand what the reviewer is actually looking for
That is why scolding staff rarely fixes review-note drag.
The firm has to teach the standard before reviewing against the standard.
If These Are True, the Problem Is Bigger Than Attention to Detail
Development gap
Manager drag
Review-readiness gap
Capacity failure
Visual framework based on SkillAbility’s development-first approach: repeated review notes are often evidence that staff were never trained to recognize review-ready work before submission.
If a manager has to keep writing the same note, the staff member may have missed the lesson.
But the firm may also have failed to teach it clearly.
3. Why Managers Become Editors Instead of Reviewers
Managers should be reviewing higher-level issues:
- Does the work support the conclusion?
- Was the right judgment applied?
- Were the right risks identified?
- Is the client explanation clear and accurate?
- Does the work meet firm standards?
- Is there an advisory or planning issue that should be raised?
Instead, many managers spend their review time fixing basics:
- Formatting
- Missing tickmarks
- Weak explanations
- Unclear open items
- Unsupported balances
- Disorganized documentation
- Repeated errors from prior reviews
- Client emails that need to be rewritten
That is how a manager becomes an editor.
And once managers become editors, the firm loses leverage.
The manager’s time is no longer being used to develop people, protect higher-level quality, or support client value. It is being spent cleaning up work that should have been made review-ready earlier.
This is not only a productivity problem.
It is a role-design problem.
Managers should review judgment, risk, and standards. They should not have to translate unfinished thinking into review-ready work.
For a deeper look at this bottleneck, read Your Managers Are Not Too Busy to Train. Your Training System Is Broken.
4. Completed Work Is Not the Same as Review-Ready Work
This is the distinction every staff person needs to understand.
Completed work means the task is done.
Review-ready work means another professional can understand what was done, why it was done, what was questioned, what remains open, and what judgment was applied.
That difference matters.
PCAOB auditing standards say audit documentation should contain enough information for an experienced auditor with no previous connection to the engagement to understand the procedures performed, evidence obtained, conclusions reached, who performed the work, and who reviewed it. That standard applies specifically to audits of issuers, but the principle is useful for every CPA firm workflow: work should be understandable to someone who did not perform it.
Journal of Accountancy’s audit documentation guidance similarly emphasizes documenting procedures performed, results, evidence obtained, significant findings or issues, conclusions reached, and who performed and reviewed the work. That is a review-readiness mindset.
| Completed Work | Review-Ready Work |
|---|---|
| The task is finished | The reviewer can understand the work without decoding it |
| The numbers tie | The support, reasoning, and conclusion are clear |
| Open items are known by the staff person | Open items are clearly documented for the reviewer |
| The staff person remembers what they did | The workpaper explains what was done and why |
| The file is submitted | The file is ready for efficient professional review |
When staff confuse “done” with “review-ready,” managers pay the price.
That is why review readiness has to be trained, not assumed.
5. The Five Causes of Excessive Review Notes
Too many review notes usually come from one of five sources.
Where Review Drag Usually Starts
“`
The work may be done, but the reviewer cannot see what was done, why it was done, or what remains open.
Staff learn from whoever is available, so work quality depends on who trained them.
Staff saw the concept once but did not practice it enough to perform reliably under deadline pressure.
Staff do not know when to solve, ask, document, or flag something before review.
Staff submit work without understanding what the manager needs to see to review efficiently.
“`
Cause 1: Poor documentation
Poor documentation is one of the most common sources of review-note drag.
The staff person may have done the work correctly, but the reviewer cannot tell. The support is missing. The explanation is vague. The conclusion is implied instead of stated. The open item is known but not documented.
In that situation, the manager has to become a detective.
That is not efficient review.
Cause 2: Inconsistent workflow training
When staff learn by shadowing different people, they often absorb different standards.
One manager wants documentation one way. Another manager wants it another way. One senior explains a shortcut. Another senior explains a different shortcut. New staff piece together a process and then get review notes for not following a standard no one clearly taught.
That is how inconsistency becomes rework.
Cause 3: Weak technical repetition
Seeing something once is not the same as learning it.
A staff person may understand a workflow while watching someone else do it. That does not mean they can perform it independently, document it cleanly, and recognize exceptions under deadline pressure.
Repetition matters.
But it should not happen only on live client work.
Cause 4: Unclear escalation habits
Some staff ask too quickly.
Some wait too long.
Some guess.
Some hide uncertainty until the manager finds the issue in review.
Escalation judgment has to be taught. Staff need to understand when they should solve independently, when they should document an assumption, when they should ask a clarifying question, and when they should immediately escalate a risk.
Cause 5: Staff do not understand reviewer expectations
Managers often assume staff know what review-ready means.
They do not.
Staff may think review is where the manager catches everything. Managers may think review is where they evaluate finished work. That expectation gap creates frustration on both sides.
A firm has to define what the reviewer needs to see before the work gets submitted.
6. How to Train Staff to Reduce Review Notes
You reduce review notes by training staff before review becomes the teaching event.
That means building review readiness into the development process.
Not after mistakes.
Before live work.
| Training Method | How It Reduces Review Notes |
|---|---|
| Completed examples | Staff see what review-ready work actually looks like |
| Sample files | Staff practice before client deadlines and client risk |
| Review checklists | Staff know what the reviewer will evaluate before submission |
| Planted errors | Staff learn to spot common issues instead of waiting for the manager |
| Documentation standards | Staff learn how to explain work, evidence, open items, and conclusions |
| Feedback loops | Staff correct patterns before those patterns repeat across client work |
Show staff completed examples
If staff have never seen review-ready work, they are guessing.
Do not only show them what was wrong. Show them what right looks like.
Give them examples of clean workpapers, documented assumptions, open-item lists, client-ready explanations, and resolved review notes.
Use sample files before live work
Live client work is not the best place to learn every basic workflow.
Sample files let staff practice the steps, make mistakes, get feedback, and repeat without creating client risk or manager deadline pressure.
This matters especially for bookkeeping cleanup, monthly close, payroll workflows, tax organizer review, workpaper documentation, and client open-item follow-up.
Teach review checklists as staff tools, not only manager tools
A review checklist should not only help the manager catch mistakes.
It should help staff understand what clean work looks like before they submit it.
If the reviewer is going to look for support, explanation, reasonableness, open items, and conclusion, staff should know that before submission.
Use planted errors
One of the best ways to build judgment is to give staff work with intentional issues.
Ask them to find what is wrong.
Missing support. Unusual variance. Unsupported client explanation. Wrong classification. Prior-year pattern that no longer applies. Open item that should have been escalated.
That is how staff learn to recognize issues before a manager has to point them out.
Create documentation standards
Every firm should define what good documentation looks like.
At a minimum, staff should know how to document:
- What was done
- What evidence was used
- What changed from prior period or prior year
- What remains open
- What judgment was applied
- What requires manager attention
- What conclusion was reached
That sounds basic.
But basic is where many review notes are born.
Build feedback loops
The point of a review note is not only to fix the current file.
The point is to prevent the same issue from showing up again.
If a review note repeats, the feedback loop failed.
That does not mean the manager failed. It means the firm needs a better way to convert review notes into training patterns.
7. What Firms Should Measure
If you want to reduce review notes in accounting, start measuring the right things.
Do not just count total notes.
Total notes can be misleading. A manager with high standards may write more notes than a manager who gives up too quickly. A complex client may naturally require more review than a simple client.
The better approach is to measure patterns.
Track Whether Review Notes Are Becoming Staff Capability
- Total review notes by work type
- Repeated review notes by staff member
- Repeated review notes by workflow
- Correction type: technical, documentation, judgment, communication
- Turnaround time from submission to review completion
- Manager rework time
- Documentation quality score
- Open-item clarity
- Escalation timing
- Whether the same issue appears again
The most important measure is not just “How many review notes did we write?”
The better measure is:
Did the same issue come back?
If yes, the note corrected the file but did not develop the person.
That is the difference.
8. A 30-60-90 Day Plan to Reduce Review Notes
Do not try to fix every review-note problem at once.
Start with the repeated patterns that consume the most manager time.
| Timeframe | Goal | Firm Action | What to Measure |
|---|---|---|---|
| Days 1–30 | Identify review-note patterns | Collect common notes by work type, staff level, client type, and manager rework time | Top 10 repeated notes and top manager time drains |
| Days 31–60 | Train review readiness | Create completed examples, review checklists, documentation standards, and sample-file practice | Scenario performance, documentation quality, fewer repeated basic notes |
| Days 61–90 | Verify improvement | Compare review-note patterns, manager rework, and turnaround time before and after training | Repeat-note reduction, cleaner workpapers, faster review, less manager rescue |
This turns review notes into a development dataset.
Instead of treating every note as a one-off correction, the firm starts asking:
- Which notes repeat most often?
- Which notes consume the most manager time?
- Which notes indicate missing technical training?
- Which notes indicate weak documentation habits?
- Which notes indicate judgment gaps?
- Which notes should become training modules, sample files, or review-ready examples?
That is how review becomes a source of capacity improvement instead of a recurring drain.
9. How SkillAbility Helps CPA Firms Build Review-Ready Staff
SkillAbility was built around a simple reality: CPA firms cannot scale if managers have to keep re-teaching fundamentals through review notes.
Review notes should improve judgment.
They should not become the firm’s primary training system.
SkillAbility helps firms move training earlier in the process, before client work reaches the manager’s desk.
The SkillAbility Review-Readiness Pathway
Staff practice real accounting, tax, payroll, and software workflows before client work becomes manager cleanup.
“`
Staff learn how to explain issues, recognize patterns, escalate appropriately, and think beyond task completion.
Future leaders learn how to review, coach, delegate, protect standards, and develop others without becoming bottlenecks.
“`
BASE: Build execution and documentation habits
BASE helps new hires and early-career professionals practice accounting, tax, payroll, software workflows, and review standards through structured scenarios and assessments.
The review-note value is simple:
Staff submit cleaner work when they have practiced the workflow before the manager reviews the live client file.
MAPS: Build judgment and client-ready communication
MAPS helps staff develop client communication, financial interpretation, professional presence, advisory thinking, and judgment.
The review-note value is stronger:
Staff need fewer corrective notes when they understand what the work means, not just how to complete the task.
Summit: Build review and leadership readiness
Summit prepares high-potential people to review work, coach patterns, protect standards, delegate effectively, and think like future firm leaders.
The review-note value becomes long term:
The next generation of managers should not learn to review by drowning in corrections after promotion.
That is how firms move from manager-dependent review to review-ready staff.
Frequently Asked Questions
How do you reduce review notes in accounting?
To reduce review notes in accounting, define review-ready standards, show staff completed examples, train documentation habits, use sample files before live client work, teach escalation judgment, and track repeated review-note patterns. The goal is not less review. The goal is better work reaching review.
Why do accounting staff get so many review notes?
Accounting staff often get too many review notes because expectations are unclear, workflow training is inconsistent, documentation habits are weak, and staff do not understand what the reviewer needs to see. Repeated review notes usually signal a readiness problem, not just an attention problem.
What is review-ready work in accounting?
Review-ready work is work another professional can understand without decoding it. It shows what was done, what evidence was used, what remains open, what judgment was applied, and what conclusion was reached. Completed work is done. Review-ready work is understandable and reviewable.
Why do managers spend too much time fixing workpapers?
Managers spend too much time fixing workpapers when staff submit work that is technically complete but poorly documented, unsupported, unclear, or missing judgment. In that situation, the manager becomes an editor instead of a reviewer.
Should CPA firms try to eliminate review notes?
No. CPA firms should not try to eliminate review notes. Good review notes protect quality and develop judgment. The goal is to reduce repeated, preventable, basic review notes by training staff to submit better work.
What review-note metrics should CPA firms track?
CPA firms should track total review notes, repeated review notes, correction type, turnaround time, manager rework, documentation quality, open-item clarity, escalation timing, and whether the same issue appears again after feedback.
How does staff training reduce review notes?
Staff training reduces review notes by teaching expectations before mistakes reach the manager. Sample files, completed examples, review checklists, planted errors, documentation standards, and feedback loops help staff learn what review-ready work looks like.
External Research and Authority Sources
- AICPA & CIMA: Quality Management resources
- AICPA & CIMA: Quality Management Standards currently effective
- PCAOB AS 1215: Audit Documentation
- PCAOB AS 1201: Supervision of the Audit Engagement
- Journal of Accountancy: Audit Documentation Tips for Getting It Right
- Journal of Accountancy: Engagement Quality Reviews — What Auditors Should Know
The Bottom Line
Too many review notes are not just a quality-control problem.
They are a development signal.
When managers have to decode, correct, rewrite, and re-explain the same issues, the firm does not have a review problem.
It has a readiness problem.
Review notes should protect quality.
They should teach judgment.
They should help staff improve.
But they should not become the firm’s primary training system.
The goal is not fewer review notes because managers lower their standards. The goal is fewer review notes because staff submit better work.
Build review-ready staff.
Teach documentation before review.
Show completed examples.
Use sample files.
Track repeated notes.
Turn review patterns into training.
Protect quality.
Reduce rework.
Free manager capacity.
Protect knowledge.
Develop people.
Scale the firm.
Want fewer repeated review notes without lowering your firm’s standards?
SkillAbility helps CPA and accounting firms replace shadowing, repeated explanations, and tribal knowledge with structured practice that builds cleaner workpapers, stronger documentation, better judgment, and review-ready staff.
Book Your Free 10-Minute Structural Alignment Review →
Includes our 45-Day Out-of-Pocket Performance Guarantee for qualifying onboarding engagements.
To your firm’s capacity,
Vincent Howard, CPA
Managing Partner, Howard, Howard and Hodges
SkillAbility for Accounting Firms
About the Author
Vincent Howard, CPA has practiced public accounting since 1990. He holds a Master’s degree in Taxation from the University of Central Florida, leads a 50-person multi-state firm, and built the SkillAbility staff development platform used by accounting firms nationwide through the PASBA network. Howard, Howard and Hodges was named PASBA Firm of the Year and has offices in Lake Mary, Sarasota, and Winter Springs, Florida.
© 2026 SkillAbility for Accounting Firms. 45-Day Out-of-Pocket Performance Guarantee applies to qualifying onboarding engagements. Contact us for full terms.