Review Notes on AI-Drafted Work: Send-Backs a Preparer Can Clear

A Reviewer reads an AI-drafted entry list, finds a problem, and sends the entry back. What happens next depends on the note. "Check row 7" starts a conversation. The Firm can ask each note to name the issue, row, source page, expected fix and person who clears it.

This post covers how to write review notes on AI-drafted work so a Preparer can clear them, and the loop that takes each note from open to cleared. Which problems send an entry back is a separate question, answered in the Reviewer's readback. Here that decision is already made. The tool drafted the rows. The Preparer fixes them against the source, and the Reviewer clears each note and signs off.

Four parts of every send-back note

The Firm can choose one fixed shape for every note to make the Reviewer's request explicit. Four parts cover it.

What. The problem, written as what the Reviewer saw: the drafted figure or label, and what the source shows instead.

Where. The row on the entry list, plus the source document and page. The Preparer should be able to open both without asking.

Expected fix. The state the row should be in when the note clears. It describes the result, not the method.

Cleared by. The name of the person who closes the note. Under the Firm's rule, that's the Reviewer who raised it unless the Firm has said otherwise.

The Firm can also decide that a note missing any of the four parts goes back to the Reviewer before it reaches the Preparer. The Reviewer completes the missing parts before sending the note back. A note without an expected fix can cost a whole round, because the Preparer fixes something and the Reviewer meant something else.

Write the what as an observation

One note, one issue. When a row has two problems, the Firm can have the Reviewer write two notes and assess each response separately.

Put what the page shows and what the draft shows side by side. An illustrative note can read: "Row 7 shows 1,420.00; page 2 prints 1,240.00." "Amount looks wrong" sends the Preparer to redo the Reviewer's search. Quote figures and labels exactly as printed, signs and brackets included.

Keep the note about the row, not the person or the tool. It doesn't need to say how the error got there. Whether the Preparer redrafts the row with the tool or types the fix by hand is the Preparer's call under the Firm's procedure. Either way, the fix gets checked against the page.

Point to the row and the page

Where points to the entry list row and the source page. The row half is the entry list's own row number or reference, so the note still lands if someone sorts the list. The page half is the document name and page, plus a line or item number when the page prints one.

If the problem is something missing, the note points to the spot where it should be: the page that prints an item with no row, or the row that has no page reference. A note that only says "missing item" leaves the Preparer searching the whole document.

Expected fix and cleared-by

The expected fix is the end state. "Row 7 shows 1,240.00 from page 2" is clear. "Fix the amount" isn't, because the Preparer can't tell when they're done.

Sometimes the Reviewer can see that the row and the page disagree but can't tell from the file what the right answer is. Then the expected fix can name two acceptable endings: find the item and correct the row, or mark the row open with what was checked. Either ending answers the note, and an open row stays visible to everyone who reads the list.

Each note names the person who clears it. The Firm can let a Preparer clear a narrow class of notes, such as a typo in a label. Under that split, only the Reviewer clears a note that changes an amount. Whatever split the Firm picks, the person named on the note is the only one who closes it.

The clearing loop

The Firm can run each round in the same five steps.

1. The Preparer reads every open note before changing anything, since one fix can touch another note's row.
2. The Preparer fixes each row against its source page and keeps the page reference.
3. The Preparer writes a response on each note: what changed and why, or why nothing changed. The Reviewer's note text stays as written.
4. The Preparer re-submits only when every note has a response. If the Preparer disagrees with a note, the response says so and names the page that supports it.
5. The Reviewer reads each response and each changed row, plus anything the change moves, like a list total. Then the Reviewer clears the note or reopens it with a new round underneath.

Each note carries one status: open, answered, cleared or reopened. A reopened note keeps its first round, and the second sits below it, so the history reads top to bottom.

The Firm can also set a stopping point. A note that's been reopened twice can move to a short conversation between the two people, with the outcome written on the note before it clears.

Keep the notes with the file

The Firm can adopt this rule: cleared notes stay with the entry list in the Firm's file. Under that rule, notes and responses remain after clearance to show what changed. Under the Firm's rule, the entry list doesn't move on as reviewed while any note is still open, answered or reopened.

A Doe example

The figures below are made up for illustration.

Pat Doe, a Reviewer at Doe & Co. CPA, reads back an AI-drafted entry list for the client Doe Holdings. The list totals 6,480.00 across 18 rows. Pat writes three notes.

Note 1. What: row 7 shows 1,420.00, and statement page 2 prints 1,240.00. Where: row 7, statement page 2, item 4. Expected fix: row 7 shows 1,240.00 from page 2. Cleared by: Pat Doe.

Note 2. What: row 11 says "Office rent", and the invoice prints "Equipment lease". Where: row 11, invoice page 1. Expected fix: row 11 carries the printed label. Cleared by: Pat Doe.

Note 3. What: row 15 has no page reference. Where: row 15, amount 301.00. Expected fix: row 15 cites the page that prints its amount, or the row is marked open with the pages checked. Cleared by: Pat Doe.

Jane Doe, the Preparer, reads all three before changing anything. She corrects row 7 to 1,240.00, so the list total drops by 180.00 to 6,300.00. She relabels row 11. For row 15 she finds the item on statement page 5 and adds the reference. She answers each note and re-submits.

Pat reads the three responses, the three rows and the new total. Notes 1 and 2 clear. Page 5 prints 310.00, not 301.00, so Pat reopens note 3 with a second round: row 15 shows 310.00 from page 5. Jane corrects it, the total rises by 9.00 to 6,309.00, and she answers the round. Pat clears note 3, finds no open notes, and signs off.

Where TracePrep fits

TracePrep's one shipped workflow today is the Reasonable Compensation Study for an S-corporation shareholder-employee. It's a different job from this review loop, and it keeps the same kinds of records:

We've built a TracePrep plugin that runs these steps in your Firm's workflow.

Want the TracePrep plugin in your Firm? We'll tell you when access opens.

Join the waitlist

This is general information, not tax or legal advice. Your licensed professional and your Firm's Reviewer are responsible for every return and every conclusion. Keep client data inside the systems your Firm has approved. As general guidance only, not advice: if you use an AI tool with client data, firms generally look for a business or commercial plan whose terms cover how that data is handled; read the vendor's current terms before you do.