D562 Internal Auditing II, catalog number ACCT 6350, is the three-CU continuation of D560, aligned with the competencies set out by the Institute of Internal Auditors. Where the first course establishes what internal audit is and why it is structured the way it is, this one is about doing the work: executing an engagement, developing findings that hold up, communicating results to people who did not want to hear them, and following through until something changes.
A finding has five parts, and skipping one destroys it
The most transferable thing in this course is the structure of a properly developed finding. It has five elements, and a finding missing any of them will either be dismissed by the auditee or will fail to produce a correction.
Criteria. What should be happening: the policy, standard, regulation or agreed process. Without it there is no basis for saying anything is wrong.
Condition. What is happening, stated factually with the evidence behind it. Not an impression, and not a generalization from one instance unless that is disclosed.
Cause. Why the gap exists. This is the element most often skipped and the one that determines whether the recommendation will work, since a control that fails because nobody was trained needs a different fix from one that fails because it was never designed.
Effect. What the gap means for the organization, quantified wherever possible. This is what converts an observation into something management will fund a response to.
Recommendation. What should change, addressed to whoever can change it.
Findings written this way are hard to argue with, because each element is separately verifiable. Findings written as complaints invite negotiation about whether they matter, which is a conversation an auditor should never have to have.
Planning fieldwork documentation from the aspects
Aspects in your Course of Study are scored independently and each needs a 2. Engagement execution aspects tend to reward documentation over narrative, which means the word budget behaves differently from a writing-led course.
Worked example, documentation-led. Suppose your rubric lists seven scored aspects and the directions ask for roughly 2,400 words alongside an audit program and working papers. Reserve 160 for the engagement summary, leaving 2,240, or 320 per aspect. Then recognize which aspects are carried by exhibits: an audit program and a working paper set carry their own detail, so those aspects need only 180 of prose each. That releases 280 words, which should go to the findings aspects, taking them to roughly 460 each.
Draft one finding completely, through all five elements, before drafting the others. Getting the first one right establishes the pattern and the level of specificity, and the remaining findings then take a fraction of the time. Students who draft all findings in parallel usually produce five half-developed ones instead of five complete ones.
The working paper and the audit program
Fieldwork deliverables are documentation. This table covers what each element must contain to meet professional expectations. Task directions take precedence where they set a format.
| Document | Required content | The reviewer's test |
|---|---|---|
| Audit program | Each objective, the procedures to achieve it, the evidence sought | Every procedure traces to an objective and every objective has procedures |
| Working paper header | Purpose, source of data, period covered, preparer and reviewer | Whether the paper can be understood without asking the preparer |
| Test detail | Population, selection method, items examined, attributes tested | Whether the test could be repeated and reach the same result |
| Results | Exceptions found, quantified, with references to supporting evidence | Whether exceptions are counted and traced rather than described |
| Conclusion | Whether the objective was met, stated plainly | Whether a conclusion exists at all, which is the most common omission |
| Finding sheet | Criteria, condition, cause, effect, recommendation | All five elements present and separately supported |
| Management response | The agreed action, owner and date | Whether the response addresses the cause rather than the symptom |
| Follow-up record | Verification that the action was completed and effective | Whether closure rests on evidence rather than on assertion |
Every working paper needs a conclusion. A paper full of careful testing that never says whether the objective was met leaves the reviewer to infer it, and inference is exactly what documentation exists to eliminate.
Communicating results and handling disagreement
The distinctive professional skill in this half of the subject is delivering unwelcome conclusions in a way that produces action rather than resistance.
- Report facts before conclusions, so the auditee is agreeing to evidence before they are asked to accept a judgment.
- Quantify effect wherever the data allows. Twelve of ninety payments lacking approval, totalling a stated amount, is harder to dismiss than a statement that approvals are inconsistent.
- Separate significant findings from minor observations, and say which is which, since a report that treats everything as serious will be discounted entirely.
- Give management the opportunity to respond and record the response, including disagreement, rather than omitting it.
- Cite professional standards and course material in APA paraphrase, keeping quotation minimal because submissions are similarity-checked.
Root cause analysis is the technique that turns a plausible cause into a defensible one, and it is worth applying deliberately rather than by instinct. Ask why the condition occurred, then ask why that occurred, and continue until the answer reaches something the organization can actually change. A missing approval is not caused by an employee forgetting; it may be caused by an approval step that has no system enforcement, which may in turn be caused by a configuration decision made when the system was implemented and never revisited. The recommendation that attaches to the last answer will hold, while one attached to the first will produce a reminder email and the same finding next year.
Follow-up is where the value of the function is actually realized, and it is the stage students treat as administrative. An agreed action with no verification is a promise, and closing a finding on management's word rather than on evidence undermines every future engagement. Where a task includes a follow-up element, state what evidence would be sufficient to close each item, because that specificity is what makes the follow-up possible at all.
What a Competent engagement submission shows
Each aspect is judged on its own against the competency standard, and the recurring test is completeness of documentation.
- Every procedure in the audit program traces to a stated objective.
- Working papers are self-explanatory, with purpose, source and period recorded.
- Every finding carries all five elements, with cause genuinely analyzed rather than restated from the condition.
- Effect is quantified wherever the data permits.
- Recommendations address the cause, and follow-up specifies the evidence required for closure.
WGU records Competent or Not Competent, with no letter grade and no ordinary grade point average, and performance assessment work can be revised and resubmitted with no penalty. A return costs queue days inside a six-month flat-rate term, which is the resource that determines how many graduate courses you close. Where a proctored objective assessment is attached to this course, our support is preparation only: standards review, finding development drills and an honest readiness verdict, never a sitting and never a request for credentials.
Six mistakes in internal audit execution work
- Findings with no cause. Without it the recommendation is a guess, and the same failure returns after the fix.
- Effect stated as a possibility. Something could happen is weak; here is what has already happened and what it cost is a finding.
- Working papers that only make sense to their author. The professional standard is that another auditor can follow them unaided.
- No conclusion on the paper. Testing without a conclusion leaves the objective unanswered.
- Treating every observation as significant. A report with no prioritization gets read as noise and ignored in full.
- Closing follow-up items on assurance rather than evidence. Verification is the point of the exercise.
Support through engagement execution
Send the rubric, the directions and the engagement scenario. The deliverable comes back with an audit program where every procedure traces to an objective, working papers that stand alone with purpose and source recorded, findings developed through all five elements with cause genuinely analyzed and effect quantified, recommendations aimed at the cause and follow-up criteria specified. The walkthrough concentrates on finding development, since that structure is the thing this course exists to install.
D562 completes the pair begun in D560 Internal Auditing I and complements D561 Information Systems for Accounting and Control, since a large share of modern internal audit work examines controls that live in systems rather than in paperwork.
Questions students ask about D562
Is D562 the same course as ACCT 6350?
Do I need D560 before D562?
What are the five elements of a finding?
Audit program or finding sheets due?
Send the engagement scenario and the rubric. Every finding arrives with all five elements and an effect quantified where the data allows.
Where D562 sits in WGU's programs
The July 2026 catalog places this code in 1 current WGU program. Open a program page for the complete standard path and term positions. The live Degree Plan remains authoritative after transfer credit, substitutions, and mentor planning.
The assessments, one by one
The public catalog does not publish this course's PA/OA identity or task count. WGU Tutors publishes at most one PA manual per course and only from a WGU-controlled public rubric. Until that source exists, PA help begins from the student's real Course of Study and OA support remains preparation only.