# Account audit — Fintech

The account audit with the checks a regulated financial product needs: whether every live ad's claim is covered by a current review, whether delivery has drifted outside authorised markets, whether disclosures still render where they should, and how approval rates differ by campaign.

Everything else is the general audit, unchanged. One row per finding, evidence attached, honest severity, one action, one owner, one date.

## How to use it

1. Copy this file, or the CSV version if you would rather work in a sheet.
2. Work area by area rather than campaign by campaign, so the same check is applied everywhere.
3. Write what was found separately from what should be done.
4. Attach evidence to every finding, with the date range you looked at.
5. Keep severity honest: if everything is critical, nothing is.
6. Agree owners and dates with the people who will do the work, not in their absence.
7. Close findings as accepted where somebody has decided to live with them.

## The columns

**Area** (Text). Which part of the account this belongs to: approvals, market delivery, disclosures, landing pages, audiences, tracking, access. The first four are the ones an external reviewer will ask about, so they are listed first.

**Check performed** (Text). What was looked at, as an action somebody could repeat: every live ad matched against the review record, delivery settings read, rendered ads opened on each placement. The repeatability is what makes this an audit rather than an opinion.

**What was found** (Text). The observation with no recommendation in it: these ads carry references predating the fee change, this campaign delivers outside the authorised market. State the fact first, because the remedy is rarely disputed once it is agreed.

**Evidence** (Text). Where it can be seen, and in this category it has to be durable: the list of ads with references, screenshots of delivery settings, the rendered ad on each placement, the page as it served. These are the record, not a working note.

**Severity** (Text). Spending wrongly now, distorting decisions, or untidy. Creative in market under a lapsed review is the first and always the top level; an unreconciled approval rate is the second; naming drift is the third.

**Impact** (Text). What it is costing, and here the honest answer is often not money. Say what is exposed rather than inventing a figure: creative running under a stale review, applications attracted from people who will be declined.

**Recommendation** (Text). One action a person can start on Monday: replace these ads with creative under the current review, restore the market exclusion, reconcile approval rates by campaign. Never edit an ad in place, because that corrupts the record.

**Effort** (Text). Minutes, a day, or a project. Restoring a delivery setting is minutes; re-clearing a set of creative depends on the review queue, and that is a dependency rather than an effort estimate, so write the queue length in the notes.

**Owner** (Text). The person who will do it, by name, and for anything touching wording that is the reviewer rather than the marketer. Agree it with them before the audit is circulated.

**Due** (Date (YYYY-MM-DD)). When the fix is expected. Anything in the top severity level is dated for this week, because the exposure continues while the row is open and the date is what makes that visible.

**Status** (Text). Open, done, or accepted. Accepted is rarer here than elsewhere and should be: a finding about wording or market delivery is not something to live with, and using the status that way hollows out the audit.

**Reviewed on** (Date (YYYY-MM-DD)). The day this finding was checked. Rate, fee and term changes make correct creative stale overnight, so a finding from last quarter may describe an account that has since drifted further rather than been fixed.

**Notes** (Text). What the next auditor needs: which setting holds a market restriction, the review that expires next, the campaign that looks wrong and was cleared that way, the claim that was refused and why.

## The account audit

| Area | Check performed | What was found | Evidence | Severity | Impact | Recommendation | Effort | Owner | Due | Status | Reviewed on | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |

## Before you commit it

- Every finding separates what was found from what should be done.
- Every live ad has been checked against a current review, by reference.
- Delivery settings have been checked against authorised markets.
- Disclosures have been checked as rendered, not as designed.
- Approval rates have been compared across campaigns and creative.
- Every row has an owner by name and a due date.
- Findings somebody has decided to live with are closed as accepted.