ACCA AA June 2026: Why Candidates Lose Marks on Procedures Questions (SD 2025 Examiner Report)

The Real Problem with AA Procedures Answers

You probably know enough audit theory to pass AA. The September/December 2025 examiner's report makes clear that most AA failures are technique failures — specifically, candidates producing rote-learned tests that ignore the scenario in front of them.

The SD2025 report covers three Section B questions: Quirky Quadbikes Co (internal controls, deficiencies, substantive procedures for payroll, corporate governance), Survival Solutions Co (documentation, ratios and audit risks), and Flatiron & Co (inventory count procedures, purchases and expenses, directors' bonuses, subsequent events). The same exam technique errors appear across all three. Here's what's actually going wrong.

Mistake 1: Your Procedures Aren't Tailored to the Scenario

The examiner states it plainly on Flatiron & Co: "too often candidates have rote learnt a set of standard tests and these are then produced for each requirement without consideration of their relevance to the scenario provided. This approach tends to generate few marks."

For the continuous inventory count requirement, a significant proportion of candidates provided generic inventory valuation procedures — casting the listing, analytical review — when the question asked specifically for procedures to place reliance on the continuous count system. Valuation tests don't confirm the reliability of inventory records. They earned nothing.

The fix is straightforward: before writing a single procedure, read the scenario and identify what's specific. Tribeca Co had an internal audit department that tested the new system, monthly counts ensuring all lines were covered, and adjustments made after each count. Your procedures should test each of those facts directly. Reviewing schedules of counts to confirm all lines are counted at least once a year. Reviewing internal audit reports to confirm the scope and conclusions of their testing. Attending a continuous count and performing test counts. Each piece of scenario information is a prompt for a targeted procedure.

Mistake 2: Your Substantive Procedures Are Too Vague

One mark per well-explained procedure means vague answers earn nothing. The examiner is specific: procedures must clearly state which source document is used and what it's being used for.

On payroll at Quirky Quadbikes, candidates wrote "agree to bank ledger and bank statements" without specifying this was to agree the net pay figure from the payroll records. Half mark. "Recalculate gross to net pay for a sample of employees" earned half a mark too — because it needed to be agreed back to the payroll records to confirm accuracy.

On purchases at Flatiron, many candidates tested trade payables instead of purchases — similar procedures, wrong account, no marks. Others wrote "agree amounts to the purchase ledger/payables account" which is a payables test, not a purchases test.

On directors' bonuses, candidates wrote "review board minutes" and "obtain written representations" without specifying what they were looking for. Board minutes should be reviewed to identify any additional amounts paid to directors. Written representations should confirm completeness of the bonuses disclosed. Without that specificity, these are half marks at best.

Wrong: "Review board minutes for the bonus."
Right: "Review board minutes to identify whether any additional bonuses or remuneration have been authorised for directors beyond those disclosed in the draft financial statements."

Mistake 3: You're Confusing Tests of Control with Substantive Procedures

This comes up in every AA examiner's report. In SD2025 it cost marks on payroll, on purchases, and on directors' bonuses. When a question asks for substantive procedures, any test of control in your answer earns nothing.

On payroll, some candidates focused almost entirely on auditing new joiners — because the deficiency in requirement (b) involved incomplete joiner forms. But the majority of their listed procedures were tests of controls (reviewing whether joiner forms were authorised) rather than substantive procedures over the payroll expense balance.

The distinction: a test of control asks whether a control is operating effectively. A substantive procedure asks whether a balance or transaction is materially misstated. If you're reviewing authorisation, checking segregation of duties, or verifying whether a process was followed — that's a test of control. If you're recalculating an amount, agreeing a figure to source documents, or performing analytical review of a balance — that's substantive.

Mistake 4: Your Audit Risk Explanations Are Missing the Assertion

On Survival Solutions, candidates could identify risks from the scenario well. Explaining them was where marks leaked.

To explain an audit risk you need: the specific financial statement area affected, and either an assertion (valuation, completeness, cut-off, existence etc.) or a clear statement of over/understatement. "Non-current assets could be misstated" earns no credit because it doesn't specify whether over or understated, and it doesn't identify the specific asset class. "PPE could be understated" is the minimum needed. Better: "PPE could be understated as the part-exchanged plant may have been recorded at the cash sum paid rather than its fair value."

On auditor responses: "increase professional scepticism" on its own is worth half a mark at most, and only for one specific risk (the financial controller having left). For every other risk it needs to be paired with specific additional procedures to earn full credit. "Discuss with management" earns nothing without specifying what is being discussed and why.

Mistake 5: Control Deficiencies Need the Implication, Not Just the Fact

On Quirky Quadbikes, candidates who identified a deficiency by copying the fact from the scenario — "goods received are checked against the supplier's delivery note" — didn't earn the identification half mark. Checking against the delivery note is not a deficiency. The deficiency is that quality is not checked and the delivery is not compared to the purchase order.

Once you identify the deficiency, you need its implication to the business. "This could result in fraud and error" earns nothing — all deficiencies can lead to fraud and error. The explanation must be specific: "the company may receive poor quality goods, or goods not ordered, leading to wasted resources and potential production issues."

On recommendations: phrasing them as objectives ("ensure that joiner forms are completed") earned half a mark. To get the full mark, the recommendation needed to specify who does it and how: "The HR department should complete a joiner form for all new employees, including temporary staff, prior to adding them to the payroll."

The Review Engagement Trap

Section A tested this on the five-year profit forecast. The correct procedures for a review are inquiry and analytical procedures. Tests of controls and agreeing revenue and expenses to invoices (impossible when the transactions haven't yet occurred) are wrong. This is a tested distinction: review = limited assurance = inquiry and analytical. Full audit = reasonable assurance = the full range of procedures including controls testing and inspection of source documents.

What to Do Before June 2026

For every procedures question, read the scenario before starting your answer. Identify what's specific: the nature of the client, the particular account balance, any unusual features mentioned. Your procedures should address those specifics — not a generic checklist.

Check each procedure you write: does it name a source document? Does it say what the document is being used to confirm? Is it actually a substantive procedure (or a test of control when the question asks for substantive)? If you can answer yes to all three, it's likely worth a full mark. If not, develop it before moving on.

Practice questions from the ACCA Practice Platform using the published sample answers alongside the examiner's report. The questions named in the SD2025 report — Harper Co MJ25, Pimento Co MJ25, Everest Co MJ25 — are recent enough to be highly relevant.

The Pass Rate Context

AA typically passes around half of candidates at each sitting. The SD2025 report notes that performance on substantive procedures questions was consistently below potential, with the same technique errors appearing across multiple requirements. Candidates who read the scenario carefully, tailored their procedures to it, and provided specific detail in each test performed materially better than those who applied standard lists.

The examiner's closing message is consistent: adequate question practice is the differentiator. Reading notes is not enough. The written questions test application skills that only develop through practice.