Walkthrough
One procedure, from the client’s upload to the reviewer’s desk.
This is a revenue cut-off procedure on a sample engagement, played out stage by stage: evidence arriving, 186 invoices tested, 8 exceptions, one finding, and the auditor who decided what it meant. Every figure is fixed — the run produces the same population and the same exceptions each time you watch it. Pause it, step back, or jump to any stage.
ABC Manufacturing Pvt Ltd
FY 2025–26 · year ended 31 March 2026
Materiality
₹12,50,000
Performance materiality
₹9,37,500
Engagement partner
R. Menon
Stage 1 of 12
Client
The client sends the evidence.
Documents arrive through the client portal against a named request. Each one is logged with who provided it and when — before anything is done to it.
Documents received
0
Against requests
38
Via the client portal
401
Arriving now
Nothing has been read yet. At this point the file records only what arrived, who sent it and when — which is what makes the rest of the chain provable.
Sample engagement data for a fictional client. Lekhya supports audit procedures; it does not form audit opinions. Every conclusion shown is recorded against a named auditor.
What you just watched
Four things happened, in this order.
01
Give Lekhya the evidence
Documents arrive against named requests and are identified before anything is done with them.
02
It performs the repetitive testing
The same defined comparisons, on the whole population, producing the same answer every run.
03
Exceptions become traceable findings
Each one carries its reason, its figures and the document page behind every number.
04
The auditor reviews and signs
Every judgment in the file is written by a named person. The system does not make them.
Provenance
Three kinds of statement, never blended into one another.
An audit file is only as good as its ability to say who asserted what. Every statement Lekhya puts in a working paper carries one of these three marks, in the paper itself and in the audit trail.
- computed
- A deterministic result. The system calculated it by comparison, and running it again returns the same answer.
- drafted · unreviewed
- Narrative assembled from the procedure's own output. It stands as a draft until a named auditor takes it. It is not evidence of review.
- auditor
- Written or approved by a named person, recorded against their name and the time. Every judgment in the file is one of these.
There is no confidence score anywhere in the product, because a percentage on an audit assertion invites a reviewer to accept it instead of checking it. A statement is either deterministic and re-runnable, or it is a draft, or a person has signed their name to it.
Go further into the file.
The prototype holds the same engagement — the finding you watched being raised, the evidence behind it, and the working paper it landed in. There the decision is still open: you make it.