The Outlier Branch
You are an analyst at an independent review firm. You are finalising a report for a client's regulator on a sample of 200 customer complaints. Your analysis found that 18 complaints were mishandled; 4 of those 18 came from a single branch whose manager is a personal friend of the client's COO. The client's project sponsor asks you to exclude the branch from the sample because it is 'not representative' and the sample would then show only 14 mishandled complaints, below the 10% threshold that triggers a remedial programme. The sampling method was agreed in advance and the branch was selected randomly. The sponsor says the report is 'internal' and the regulator will only see the summary. Your engagement letter says the firm reports to the client's audit committee and any exclusion of data must be documented with a rationale approved by the engagement partner. The engagement partner is on a flight and unreachable for six hours; the report is due tomorrow.
1. Identify the ethical issues and the standards or principles at stake.
Read the worked answer
The central issue is pressure to exclude valid data to change a conclusion. The branch was selected randomly under an agreed method; excluding it because its results are inconvenient would introduce selection bias and misstate the mishandling rate. The fact that the branch manager is a friend of the COO creates a conflict of interest and an appearance problem, even if no one says so directly.
The standards at stake include integrity, objectivity, professional competence and due care, confidentiality, and professional behaviour. Independence in fact and appearance matters because the report goes to a regulator. The engagement letter adds a specific control: any exclusion must be documented with a rationale approved by the engagement partner. The sponsor's claim that the report is 'internal' is misleading; the regulator will see the summary, and a summary based on a manipulated sample is still misleading.
The 10% threshold is a trigger, not a target. Removing four cases to fall below it is exactly the kind of outcome-driven adjustment that professional standards prohibit. If there is a genuine data quality reason to exclude the branch - duplicate records, wrong branch coding, a confirmed data error - it must be evidenced and approved. Friendship is not evidence. The analyst's duty is to the engagement and the audit committee, not to the sponsor's preferred result.
2. What should you do in the next six hours before the engagement partner is reachable?
Read the worked answer
Do not alter the sample or the findings. Preserve the analysis and version control so there is a clear record of what was produced before the request. Document the request, the time, who made it, and your response.
Recheck the four complaints for genuine data quality issues: duplicate records, mis-coded branch, or a confirmed error in the source data. If there is evidence, document it and flag it for partner approval; if not, keep the cases in the sample.
Prepare the report with the 18 findings and a clearly labelled note that a client request to exclude the branch was received and is pending partner review. Do not prepare a misleading 'clean' version for the regulator. Notify the sponsor in writing that you cannot make the change without partner approval and that the report will reflect the full sample unless a documented rationale is approved. Offer to discuss the methodology.
Try to reach the partner through alternative channels: email, assistant, or a colleague. If your firm has an ethics or quality partner, contact them for guidance. If the deadline cannot be met with partner approval, request a short extension from the audit committee liaison, not the sponsor. Do not send a revised report or summary to the regulator. If you must send something, ensure the summary is consistent with the full report and discloses the outstanding request.
3. How do you communicate the decision to the sponsor and, if needed, the audit committee? Include how to handle the relationship with the COO.
Read the worked answer
To the sponsor, be factual and non-accusatory: 'The sample was agreed in advance and the branch was randomly selected. Excluding it would change the finding and would need engagement partner approval and documentation. I cannot make that change. I have flagged it for partner review. Here is what the report will say.' Explain the threshold and the consequences, and offer a legitimate path: if there is evidence of a data error, provide it and it will be assessed. Do not debate the COO friendship. Document the conversation.
If the sponsor persists, or the report is due before the partner returns, escalate to the audit committee chair with a short brief: engagement status, the request, why it matters, actions taken, and the decision needed. Tell the sponsor you are escalating; do not go behind their back unnecessarily.
If the COO contacts you, refer them to the engagement partner and the audit committee, and do not discuss confidential client matters. Focus on process and evidence, not on the friendship, which you cannot prove is the motive. Maintain independence and avoid any appearance of trading access for a favourable finding. After the partner returns, obtain a written decision. If exclusion is approved, require a documented rationale and disclosure in the report. If pressure continues, consider whether the firm should withdraw from the engagement. A report to a regulator must not be misleading, whatever the internal label.