Statement review

Financial Statements Review

Upload the statements and get them back marked up. Not a summary, and not a score. A Word document with real comments anchored to the exact sentence that has a problem, covering the disclosure you have missed, the note that does not agree with the balance sheet, and the treatment that will not survive review.

Returned as a commented Word file

Why it exists

The errors that survive to the audit are the boring ones

Almost nobody signs off statements with the wrong revenue recognition policy. What survives is a note that does not tie to the balance sheet, a disclosure that was required this year and was not last year, and a policy paragraph copied from a prior year that no longer describes what the entity does.

Cross-references break silently

The balance sheet says one number and note 12 says another, because someone updated one and not the other at eleven at night. No spellcheck catches it and the eye slides over it on the fourth read.

Disclosure requirements move

Something became mandatory this year. Nobody on the team knows which something, because the checklist you are using was built two reporting periods ago.

Prior year wording outlives the facts

Policy notes get rolled forward. The entity changed its revenue model, took on a lease, or disposed of a segment, and the policy paragraph still describes last year's business.

You cannot proofread your own file

By the fourth pass you are reading what you meant to write. The auditor reads it cold, which is exactly why they find things you looked at eight times.


How it runs

Upload, review, download the marked-up file

Upload the statements

The full set with notes, or a single statement. PDF, Word or plain text all work, though Word gets you the best output.

  1. 1Attach a PDF, .docx or plain text file
  2. 2Full statements with notes, or one statement on its own
  3. 3Upload the draft, not the signed version
Full FRS 102 statements with notes, Word file, 34 pages.
Read all of it, including the notes. Which framework should I review against, FRS 102 or FRS 101?

Pick the framework

FRS 101, FRS 102, full IFRS, US GAAP or AICPA. The review changes materially depending on which one you choose.

  1. 1FRS 101 or FRS 102 for UK and Irish entities
  2. 2Full IFRS for listed companies and groups
  3. 3US GAAP or AICPA for US reporting entities
FRS 102, small company but not taking the small entity exemptions.
Noted. Then I will hold you to the full Section 1A disclosures rather than the reduced set.

Get comments anchored to the text

Every finding points at a specific phrase, says what the issue is, and says what to do about it. No general observations.

  1. 1Disclosure gaps against the framework you chose
  2. 2Cross-reference mismatches between statements and notes
  3. 3Treatment and wording that a reviewer will query
What did you find in the related party note?
It discloses the transactions but not the outstanding balances. Section 33.9 requires both. Comment anchored there.

Download the marked-up file

A .docx with native Word comments. Open it in Word or Google Docs, work through them, resolve as you go.

  1. 1Real Word comments, not a separate list
  2. 2Each one anchored to the exact text it refers to
  3. 3Resolve them in Word as you fix, like any review
I uploaded a PDF, can I still get the Word file?
Yes. PDFs and text files come back as a clean Word document with the comments in place.

What it looks like

Four comments from one set of statements

Shortened, and anonymised. The pattern is what matters: each comment points at specific text, names the requirement, and says what to do.

Review comments, FRS 102 full statements
Reviewed the full set. What did you flag?
Review comment
Cross-reference, note 14
The balance sheet shows trade and other receivables of 2,847,000. Note 14 analyses receivables totalling 2,748,000. The difference of 99,000 is not explained by the prepayments line, which is disclosed separately. One of the two is wrong, and if the note is right, the balance sheet total needs correcting before this goes out.
Review comment
Disclosure gap, note 27
The related party note discloses the transactions with the parent during the year but not the balances outstanding at the reporting date. FRS 102 paragraph 33.9 requires both, and the amounts outstanding are the part a reviewer looks for first because they carry the recoverability question. Add the year-end balances and the terms.
Review comment
Policy wording, page 11
The revenue policy describes recognition "on despatch of goods". The directors' report on page 4 describes a shift to installed solutions with a commissioning period. If revenue is now earned over a commissioning phase, this policy no longer describes the business and reads as a prior year paragraph left in place.
Review comment
Going concern, page 9
The going concern statement says the directors have a reasonable expectation of continuing in operation but does not state the period considered. FRS 102 paragraph 3.8 is framed on at least twelve months from the date of approval, and with net current liabilities on the face of the balance sheet, an auditor will ask for the period and the basis. State both.

Coverage

What gets checked

Disclosure completeness

Required notes against the framework you chose, including the ones that became mandatory recently and are missing from older checklists.

Internal consistency

Primary statements against the notes, notes against each other, and current year against the comparatives.

Accounting treatment

Whether what is described is permitted under the framework, and whether the policy note describes what the numbers actually do.

Policy note relevance

Prior year wording that no longer matches the business, and policies disclosed for transactions the entity no longer has.

Presentation

Line item description, aggregation, subtotals and the presentation requirements that vary between frameworks.

Clarity and wording

Sentences a reader will have to read twice, undefined terms, and the typographical errors that get through four review passes.


Who uses it

For the pass before the auditor's pass

The cheapest time to find a disclosure gap is before the file leaves your desk. After that it is a query, a revision and a conversation about quality.

Finance teams preparing statements

A cold read of your own file, which is the one thing you cannot do yourself by the fourth draft.

Controllers and finance directors

A completeness check before you sign, on the disclosures you are personally attaching your name to.

Audit teams

A first pass over a client draft, so your review time goes on judgement rather than on tying notes to the balance sheet.

Practice partners and managers

Consistent quality across a portfolio of statements prepared by different people at different times of the year.

Internal audit and compliance

Testing whether the stated accounting policies match what the reported numbers actually do.

Contractors and consultants

Delivering a compliant set for a client whose framework you have not worked in for a year or two.


Questions

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What file types can I upload?

PDF, Word .docx and plain text. Word gives the best result because the comments come back anchored in your own document. PDFs and text files are converted to a clean Word file with the comments in place.

Which frameworks are covered?

FRS 101, FRS 102 including Section 1A, full IFRS, US GAAP and AICPA. The review is only as accurate as the framework you select, so select the one you actually report under.

Are the comments real Word comments?

Yes, native Word comments anchored to the exact text, not a separate list of findings. Open the file in Word or Google Docs and work through them the way you would any review.

Does this replace an audit or a review engagement?

No. It is a preparation and quality check, not assurance. It carries no opinion and no engagement, and every finding needs your own judgement applied before you act on it.

What happens to my statements?

The document is processed to produce your review and the result saves to your workspace so you can return to it. Do not upload anything you are not permitted to process outside your own systems.

Is it free?

Yes, with no cap on the number of reviews. A free account exists so the reviewed documents save to a workspace you can come back to.


The terms

Free, including the download

The marked-up Word file is the output, so putting it behind a payment would make the tool pointless. There is no paid tier.

How much it costs: £0

No payment details, and the commented .docx download itself is not held back or watermarked.

No review cap

Review the draft, fix it, review it again. Useful at every stage, not just once at the end.

Findings, not a score

A compliance percentage would tell you nothing you can act on. Specific comments anchored to specific text is the only output worth having.


Get the statements marked up

Review my statements Read the FRS 102 guide