The Reviewer controls the conclusion.

Signing a compensation figure you cannot trace is exposure nobody chose to take on. In TracePrep nothing reaches a client until a Reviewer has inspected the derivation and approved it, and the record shows who did what.

Review is not a rubber stamp, so the tooling should not treat it as one

A study arrives finished. The number is on the page, the formatting is clean, and none of that tells the Reviewer whether the derivation holds. The usual options are both bad: accept it because the preparer is capable, or rebuild it because you are the one signing. TracePrep offers a third. Open the derivation, read the evidence behind each figure, read the rationale recorded with each preparer adjustment, and decide from what is actually there. The judgment stays the Reviewer’s. TracePrep supports it rather than standing in for it.

The audit log records who prepared, who changed what, and who approved

Every material action on a Study is recorded. Who prepared it. Which figures a Preparer adjusted, what the prior value was, and the rationale given. When each change happened. Who approved the result. The log is not a report assembled afterward to satisfy a file review. It accumulates as the work happens, and that is the only kind of record of professional judgment worth reading. When a question arrives about how a conclusion was reached, the answer is in the log rather than in somebody’s recollection.

Nothing is delivered until the Reviewer releases it

The Reviewer holds both gates. The conclusion is not final until a Reviewer approves it, and the finished Study does not go out until a Reviewer releases it. There is no path where a Study reaches a client because a step was skipped or a deadline was close. That control point is a property of the workflow rather than a policy somebody has to remember to follow, which is what makes it something the Firm can describe and rely on.

Why this matters

For the Reviewer

You sign what you inspected. The derivation, the adjustments and their stated reasons, and the change history are all in front of you before you approve, and the record shows the approval was yours.

For the Firm

Review becomes consistent across preparers instead of depending on who happened to prepare the file. The Firm gets one control point it can describe, and a log that shows the control actually operated.

Related features

Questions

Does "Reviewer sign-off" mean TracePrep reviews the Study?
No. The Reviewer is your Firm’s own qualified professional, working inside your engagement. TracePrep does not review Studies, does not reach the conclusion, and makes no claim about whether a figure is right. What it does is put the derivation in front of your Reviewer and record the decision they make.
What exactly does the audit log capture?
Who prepared the Study, which figures were adjusted and from what prior value, the rationale recorded with each adjustment, the timestamps, and who approved. It accumulates during the work rather than being assembled afterward, so it reflects what happened rather than what was reconstructed.
Can a Study be delivered without a Reviewer approving it?
No. Approval and release are both Reviewer-controlled steps in the workflow. A Study that has not been approved is not deliverable, and the sequence is not something a deadline can shortcut.

See where the Reviewer sits in the workflow.

Six steps from intake to the workpapers your Firm keeps, with the roles named at each one.

Get startedSee how a Study is built