Audit confirmations remain one of the most important sources of external audit evidence. Yet for many CPA firms, obtaining bank confirmations has become more operationally complex than it was a few years ago.
The difficulty is not with the standards, but in implementing them. Banks continue to refine their confirmation procedures, and authorization requirements frequently evolve. Financial institutions often rely on different platforms, workflows, and approval mechanisms. Even small changes in the procedure during the busy season may lead to significant delays.
The PCAOBâs AS 2310, The Auditorâs Use of Confirmation, reinforces the importance of maintaining auditor control over the confirmation process and obtaining reliable evidence directly from knowledgeable external sources. Similar principles appear in AU-C 505 and ISA 505, which continue to position external confirmations as highly reliable audit evidence when properly controlled by the auditor.
As financial institutions continue to strengthen security controls and modernize their processes, audit firms are increasingly seeking confirmation workflows that support auditor-controlled evidence collection while minimizing administrative delays.
Two areas receiving particular attention in 2026 are Truist audit confirmations and JPMorgan confirmation workflows. These could be important considerations for organizations that audit businesses with bank accounts at either of these financial firms.
Why bank confirmations continue to slow down audits
In many engagements, audit delays stem less from technical accounting issues and more from operational workflow challenges. Many engagement teams do not fully appreciate these challenges until fieldwork is underway.
Banks tend to change their authorization guidelines, preferred methods for receiving documents, and the ways they confirm information from time to time.
Organizations of all sizes have had experiences with:
– need for additional approvals
– delays in obtaining required approvals
– institution-specific requirements
– various methods of sending the confirmations
– delays from the clientâs treasury department
– extra work because no confirmations were received
Things get more challenging when a project involves multiple banks as counterparties. Since each institution will require a different approach and possibly additional authorization processes, delays are an increasingly common challenge across all three phases of fieldwork.
Therefore, most firms are evaluating their current practices for handling bank confirmations to determine whether they remain effective. It has led to increased interest in workflow changes in audit confirmations.
Truist audit confirmation workflow challenges
There has been a renewed push to secure Truist audit confirmations, Truist confirmation requests, and Truist Bank confirmation audit procedures as CPAs search for effective ways to obtain confirmation evidence. Indeed, Truist continues to rank among the largest banks in the United States.
However, CPA firms should not make any assumptions about a specific confirmation solution.
For example, the company may change the channel through which it seeks validation, the authentication process to be undertaken, or how the submission is to be made. Although the aforementioned modifications are designed to improve security, they require additional coordination from the engagement team.
In case of uncertainty regarding the confirmation workflow, several issues may arise.
– More follow-ups are required: CPAs will spend more time trying to establish an effective communication channel to submit their request for confirmation.
– Longer waiting times: Although it may take just an extra day, delays in the receipt of confirmations could create problems. Confirmations often fall along the critical path of the audit, as the audit procedure requires reviewing cash, debt, credits, covenants, and related items.
– Alternative confirmation procedures: According to PCAOB AS 2310 and AU-C 505, auditors are generally required to perform alternative procedures when confirmation requests do not result in reliable responses, and the requested evidence remains necessary to address assessed risks. Although alternative confirmation procedures might suffice in some cases, they usually require more testing of subsequent activity on bank accounts, the statement from the financial institution, loan documents, etc. It means that such procedures would require more work from auditors.
– Resource issues in case of multiple confirmations: If one confirmation gets delayed, it would not pose significant challenges. If 20 confirmations are affected, it is more problematic. When auditing middle-market and large companies, efficiency at scale matters a lot; that is why auditors look for confirmation solutions associated with a Truist confirmation request.
With changing confirmation requirements across banks, many companies are exploring direct confirmation solutions that enable auditor workflow control across multiple banks through a single process.
Why auditors are exploring Thomson Reuters confirmation alternatives
Thomson Reuters confirmation alternatives often receive attention for practical rather than purely technical reasons.
There is a growing trend in the audit industry to seek confirmation services that provide access to multiple banks through a common procedure. As each bank continues to impose different requirements, an alternative confirmation approach can be evaluated for its broader institutional coverage, procedural flexibility, and source-based evidence-gathering.
Apart from getting higher response rates, the key focus for firms will be on maintaining control and scalability.
JPMorgan confirmation workflows and additional authorization steps
The JP Morgan audit confirmation process presents a different challenge. For many firms, the issue is not access. It is authorization.
Bank confirmations involve sensitive financial information; many institutions maintain authorization controls to protect customer data and validate the legitimacy of requests.Â
Additional authorization requirements can increase dependency on client personnel, extend turnaround times, create bottlenecks during busy periods, and require greater coordination between auditors and clients.
Even a relatively simple additional effort by the company can significantly influence overall engagement economics when the organization conducts numerous engagements.
To avoid disrupting the engagement process, engagement teams increasingly identify confirmation requirements early in the planning process to reduce the risk of delays during fieldwork. It helps clarify which requirements must be met and avoid bottlenecks associated with confirmations.
Why auditor-controlled evidence matters more in 2026
Operational efficiency is important. Audit quality remains paramount. It is where confirmation standards become particularly relevant.
As adoption of digital confirmation platforms expands, firms should also expect increased scrutiny from regulators, audit committees, and inspection bodies regarding how confirmation evidence is validated, documented, and supervised throughout the engagement.
As confirmation networks become more fragmented, firms are increasingly evaluating how evidence is obtained and documented. Many auditors now prioritize workflows that support direct-from-source evidence collection while preserving auditor control throughout the confirmation process.
As a result, audit firms increasingly prioritize:
– Source-based direct evidence
– Security of the confirmation process
– Recording of audit trail
– Verification of response authenticity
– Minimizing manual handling of information
This target goes beyond simply receiving a response and aims to ensure the reliability of audit evidence.
What audit firms expect from modern confirmation workflows
The conversation around bank confirmations has shifted from response rates alone to broader concerns around scalability, audit quality, documentation, and operational efficiency.
Historically, firms focused primarily on response rates. The issues being discussed now have a wider scope. Some audit firms are addressing these issues through platforms that facilitate direct-source confirmations among multiple financial institutions, such as Truist and JPMorgan. Beyond fast processing, there are goals to achieve consistency in workflow throughout various engagements.
When evaluating confirmation workflows, audit firms commonly focus on the following operational considerations:
– Consistency: Audit firms prefer processes that can be implemented in multiple engagements and banking transactions.
– Coordination: Reducing unnecessary coordination requirements can improve efficiency. Thus, auditors prefer workflows with minimum coordination.
– Speed: Confirmation delays affect the completion of an engagement; timely confirmation responses help support engagement completion timelines.
– Documenting the evidence: Audit file evidence must be thoroughly documented; thus, there must be exportable documentation of audit work and workflow.
– Audit trail workflow: There is a particular focus on audit trail this year in contrast to previous years. Having inspection-ready documentation, evidence provenance, exportable audit files, and confirmation workflow documents makes it easier for audit firms to demonstrate adherence to professional standards during audits.
– Access: Audit firms need access to major banks. As the demand for confirmation continues to increase within banks, there is a need for a process to obtain evidence from relevant parties.
Final thoughts
Bank confirmation processes will likely continue evolving as financial institutions strengthen security controls and modernize their workflows.
For auditors, the challenge is maintaining efficiency without compromising audit quality or auditor control. Whether obtaining a Truist audit confirmation, navigating a JPMorgan confirmation workflow, or evaluating confirmation platform alternatives, the objective remains the same: obtaining reliable audit evidence directly from knowledgeable external sources.
As audit confirmation workflow changes continue across the industry, firms are increasingly prioritizing the collection of direct-source evidence, standardized documentation, and scalable confirmation management.
AuditConfirm supports direct-source bank confirmations across major financial institutions, including Truist and JPMorgan, helping audit teams maintain auditor control, improve documentation, and streamline confirmation workflows throughout the engagement lifecycle.
Disclaimer: Confirmation requirements, authorization procedures, and bank workflows may change over time. It is advisable to establish current requirements by communicating directly with the relevant financial institution and ensuring the process is conducted in accordance with acceptable auditing standards.
FAQs
Truist audit confirmation is an external confirmation form that auditors use to verify cash balances, debt obligations, credit facilities, collateral arrangements, and other banking relationships with Truist. It is done to provide independent auditorâs evidence.
The process for receiving a Truist confirmation request can vary depending on the method used to send it and the prevailing authorization rules at the time. The auditor needs to confirm the correct procedure by contacting Truist or the previously chosen confirmation system.
Certain organizations are considering using Thomson Reuters confirmation alternative services to meet their changing needs and connect with more banks through a single confirmation service.
The authorization/signatory process at JP Morgan may require additional authorizations and/or signatories, making coordination even harder and slowing the overall process. Proper planning and communication with clients could prevent problems from arising during the auditing procedure.
Recent audit confirmation workflow changes across financial institutions have increased the focus on auditor-controlled evidence, direct-from-source confirmations, standardized documentation, and efficient management of the JP Morgan Bank confirmation process and Truist Bank Confirmation Audit procedures.