Evidence and review layer

Every conclusion keeps its working trail.

Audeska connects what the task required, what the client or team supplied, which version was reviewed, what the reviewer decided and whether the firm deliberately released it to the client.

See the evidence chain Follow one record

RequirementWhat the task must contain

Document recordStable identity across uploads

Version historyExactly which file changed

Review decisionWho decided what and when

Engagement evidence trailContext intact

Required before reviewEvidence expectations can act as explicit completion and readiness blockers.

Versions, not replacementsLater uploads extend document history rather than erasing what was reviewed.

Approval is not sharingInternal approval and client visibility remain two separate authorised decisions.

The evidence chain

From requirement to release, each state remains inspectable

Audeska avoids the ambiguity of a folder containing several similarly named files but no durable link to the work or decision.

01RequireThe task declares the record or working paper that must exist.

02ReceiveA client or staff upload enters against the relevant document context.

03VersionCorrections create a new version while earlier files remain identifiable.

04ReviewReviewer, notes and decision attach to the evidence and work.

05ShareAn authorised user separately releases appropriate information to the portal.

Document identity

The latest file is visible. The earlier evidence is not lost.

A stable document record gathers its versions, origin, status and engagement context. Teams can see what superseded what—and which version carried the decision.

Origin remains visibleDistinguish client-supplied records from firm-produced working papers.

Correction is additiveA new upload does not silently overwrite the file someone previously considered.

Status is explicitPending, reviewed, approved, superseded and client-visible are not inferred from a filename.

Sales register.xlsxIllustrative interface

Version 1.0Client upload · Initial monthly record

Superseded

Version 1.1Client correction · Linked to the same requirement

Reviewed

Review decisionManager · Accepted with note on one exception

Recorded

Client visibilityApproval remains internal until an authorised share action

Internal

Two independent controls

Internal review and external visibility do different jobs

Conflating approval with sharing creates avoidable exposure. Audeska makes the boundary visible and deliberate.

Firm workspace

Review before release

Internal working papers and reviewer notes
Evidence exceptions and remediation
Manager or partner approval decisions
Versions that are superseded or still pending

Client portal

Only deliberately shared information

Structured requests for client records
Client’s own uploads and request status
Documents explicitly authorised for release
Appropriate engagement progress and correspondence

Approved internally does not mean shared externally.

This invariant keeps a reviewer’s acceptance decision separate from the user action that makes a document visible in the client portal.

Evidence in operating context

Everyone sees the part of the trail needed for their decision

Preparer

Know what is missing

See the document requirements that block completion and link the right version to the task.

Reviewer

Review the right version

Consider the evidence, record a decision and leave notes against the work instead of in a separate channel.

Partner

Inspect the decision trail

See required evidence, review state and unresolved exceptions before sign-off.

Client

Respond in context

Receive a clear request, upload against it and see only the information the firm has released.

Make the working trail visible

See how one record moves from client request to reviewed evidence

We will walk through versioning, review, blockers and the explicit portal sharing boundary.

Request an evidence walkthrough

Next: give clients a controlled front door.

Explore the client portal