Blog
Week 5 AI Assignment: Analyzing Internal Control (Problem 6-1A) With an AI Tool — Complete Guide + Worked Sample
Week 5 AI Assignment: Analyzing Internal Control (Problem 6-1A) With an AI Tool
If you have been assigned the Week 5 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assignment built around Problem 6-1A, “Analyzing Internal Control,” this guide walks you through exactly what your instructor expects, the seven internal-control principles you need to know, how to write AI prompts that earn full marks, and a complete worked sample you can study from. The goal: a clean, rubric-aligned submission in under an hour, even after a 12-hour shift.
Assignment: Week 5 Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assignment
Artificial Intelligence (AI) Assignment
In this week’s homework, you have been assigned Problem 6-1, which is the first exercise in the homework titled Analyzing Internal Control. This assignment requires that you identify the internal control weakness that is present in each of five scenarios (a-e).
For this assignment, you are to select two of those scenarios and use an AI tool of your choice to have that tool identify the internal control activity that is violated. You will need to create a prompt for both scenarios asking the AI tool to identify and evaluate the weakness, followed by problem statements from Problem 6.1 “in quotes.”
Complete each scenario individually. Your original analysis must be separate from the AI results.
For each scenario, be sure to write a half- to full-page write-up (per scenario) that answers the following questions.
- What AI tool was used to identify the internal control weakness (i.e., ChatGPT, Copilot, etc.)? Why did you select this tool?
- What was the correct result that you identified in the homework?
- What internal control principle did AI indicate violated in the scenario?
- Based on your review, was the result provided by AI correct?
- Was different terminology used to identify the weakness?
- Did the AI tool identify other principles that may also be weaknesses? Did it indicate what principles were not violated?
- Was there any additional information that the tool provided that you had not considered? Was that information helpful? Why or why not.
- Discuss how this tool may have helped you with the mastering of the concepts related to the assignment.
What This Assignment Actually Requires
Problem 6-1A gives you five short cases (a–e), each describing a business situation where one internal-control principle has broken down. The base textbook task is to name the principle violated in each case. Your Week 5 assignment adds an AI layer on top of that:
- Choose any two of the five scenarios.
- Write your own analysis first — identify the violated control principle without AI.
- Craft a prompt for each scenario asking a free AI tool (ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, Claude, etc.) to identify and evaluate the weakness. The prompt must include the scenario text “in quotes.”
- Compare the AI’s answer to your own and write a half- to full-page reflection per scenario.
|
The eight questions each write-up must answer
- Which AI tool did you use, and why did you choose it?
- What was the correct answer you identified yourself in the homework?
- What principle did the AI say was violated?
- Was the AI’s result correct?
- Did the AI use different terminology than your textbook?
- Did the AI flag other possible weaknesses — or state which principles were NOT violated?
- Did the AI add anything you hadn’t considered? Was it helpful, and why or why not?
- How did using the tool help you master the internal-control concepts?
How you’re graded (40 points)
| Criteria | Points |
|---|---|
| AI tool selection — clear identification and justification of a free AI tool | 5 |
| Prompt development — well-constructed, accurate request for identifying the weakness | 5 |
| Comparison of output — quality of comparison between your answer and the AI’s; similarities, differences, value of extra information | 15 |
| Reflection and analysis — how the exercise built mastery of internal-control concepts | 10 |
| Structure and style — grammar, spelling, clarity | 5 |
| Total | 40 |
The Seven Principles of Internal Control You Need to Know
Problem 6-1A is testing the seven internal-control principles from the Wild/Shaw Fundamental Accounting Principles text. Memorize these — every one of the five cases maps to exactly one (occasionally two) of them:
Establish responsibilities. Assign each task to one specific person so accountability is clear. When two people share a duty “informally,” no one is responsible.
Maintain adequate records. Keep complete, reliable records (often prenumbered documents). Poor or missing records make theft and error easy to hide.
Insure assets and bond key employees. Insure valuable assets and bond employees who handle cash, so the company is protected against loss and theft.
Separate recordkeeping from custody of assets. The person who holds an asset (e.g., cash) must not also keep the records for it — otherwise they can steal and cover it up.
Divide responsibility for related transactions. Split related steps (ordering, receiving, paying) among different people so one person can’t run a whole transaction unchecked.
Apply technological controls. Use passwords, locks, backups, scanners and similar tools to protect assets and data. Infrequent backups or unlocked systems violate this.
Perform regular and independent reviews. Have someone independent review the work periodically (internal checks, external audits). Skipping reviews removes the safety net.
| Note on naming
Different textbooks (and different editions) phrase these slightly differently — you’ll also see segregation of duties, documentation procedures, physical controls, independent internal verification, and human-resource controls from the COSO/Weygandt tradition. They describe the same ideas. Use whatever vocabulary your course uses, and you can note the overlap in your reflection (it shows depth). |
The Five Cases at a Glance
Your version of Problem 6-1A will use one of several rotating scenario sets, but the underlying violations repeat. Below are the most common cases and the principle each one breaks. Match your assigned wording to the closest row:
| # | Typical scenario | Principle violated |
|---|---|---|
| a | One employee receives all customer cash AND posts the payments to accounts (Chi Han) | Separate recordkeeping from custody of assets |
| b | Two staff alternate as petty-cash custodian / ticket system backed up only once a year (Tico / Marker Theater) | Establish responsibilities / Apply technological controls |
| c | Clerk posts charges but never password-locks the computer (Nori Nozumi) | Apply technological controls |
| d | Manager cancels the external audit to save money (Lavina Company) | Perform regular and independent reviews |
| e | Manager hires “trustworthy” staff and never reviews their work / drops bonding insurance (Ben Shales / Carla Farah) | Perform reviews / Insure assets and bond employees |
Step 1 — Pick the Two Easiest Scenarios to Defend
You only need two. Choose the cases with the cleanest, single-principle answers so your comparison with the AI is sharp. The strongest pairings are usually a custody/recordkeeping case (e.g., Chi Han) and an oversight case (e.g., the cancelled audit). They sit on opposite ends of the control system — day-to-day handling versus monitoring — which gives your reflection natural contrast.
Step 2 — Write Your Own Answer First
Before you open any AI tool, write one or two sentences naming the principle and explaining the risk. This is question 2 on the rubric and it protects your academic-integrity standing: your independent reasoning is documented and dated before the AI ever sees the problem.
Step 3 — Build a Prompt That Earns the 5 Prompt Points
A full-credit prompt does four things: assigns the AI a role, states the task, pastes the scenario in quotes, and asks for evaluation (not just a label). Use this template:
| Prompt template (copy and adapt)
“You are an auditing instructor. Identify which principle of internal control is violated in the following case, explain the specific weakness and the risk it creates, and recommend a fix. Then list any other principles that may also be weak and any that are clearly NOT violated. Case: ‘[paste the exact scenario text here]’.” |
Sample Submission: Analyzing Internal Control With an AI Tool
Study this as a model for structure, depth, and tone. Replace the scenarios, tool, and reflections with your own work and your own course’s terminology before submitting.
| Scenarios selected for this sample
Scenario A (Case a): “Chi Han receives all incoming customer cash receipts for her employer and posts the customer payments to their respective accounts.” Scenario B (Case e): “To ensure the company retreat would not be cut, the manager of Lavina Company decided to save money by canceling the external audit of internal controls.” |
AI Tool Selected
For this exercise I used ChatGPT (free GPT-4o mini tier). I chose it because it is free, widely available, and conversational, which let me ask follow-up questions about its reasoning. It is also the tool most likely to appear in a real workplace, so practicing prompt construction on it has practical value. I kept each scenario in a separate chat so the tool would not blend the two cases.
Scenario A — Chi Han (Cash Receipts and Posting)
My original analysis
Chi Han both receives the cash (custody of the asset) and posts the payments to customer accounts (recordkeeping). That combination violates the principle of separating recordkeeping from custody of assets — a core form of segregation of duties. Because one person controls both the money and the records, she could pocket a payment and adjust the customer’s account to hide the shortage (a classic lapping scheme). The fix is to have a second person post the receipts, or to have an independent employee reconcile daily deposits to the posted entries.
The prompt I used
| “You are an auditing instructor. Identify which principle of internal control is violated in the following case, explain the weakness and the risk it creates, and recommend a fix. Then list any other principles that may also be weak and any that are clearly NOT violated. Case: ‘Chi Han receives all incoming customer cash receipts for her employer and posts the customer payments to their respective accounts.’” |
What the AI said
ChatGPT identified the violation as “segregation of duties,” explaining that one employee should not have custody of cash while also maintaining the accounts receivable records. It described the specific fraud risk (skimming/lapping), recommended splitting the two functions and adding an independent bank reconciliation, and noted that “establish responsibility” was satisfied (one clear owner exists) and that record adequacy and technological controls were not the central issue here.
Comparison and evaluation
The AI’s result was correct and matched my answer. The only difference was terminology: I used the textbook’s exact wording, “separate recordkeeping from custody of assets,” while ChatGPT used the broader umbrella term “segregation of duties.” These are the same concept at different levels of specificity. The AI also went one step further than I had: it explicitly named the lapping fraud scheme and pointed out which principles were not violated, which the prompt had requested.
That contrast — saying what is fine, not just what is broken — was genuinely useful because it forced me to confirm I wasn’t over-flagging. What it added that I had not written down was the daily reconciliation control as a second remedy; that was helpful and I would now include it.
Scenario B — Lavina Company (Cancelled External Audit)
My original analysis
Lavina’s manager cancelled the external audit of internal controls to fund a retreat. This violates the principle of performing regular and independent reviews. An external audit is the independent check that confirms the rest of the control system is working; removing it means weaknesses and fraud can go undetected indefinitely. The fix is to reinstate periodic independent review — if an external audit is too costly, at minimum an internal audit or a rotating independent reconciliation should remain in place.
The prompt I used
| “You are an auditing instructor. Identify which principle of internal control is violated in the following case, explain the weakness and the risk it creates, and recommend a fix. Then list any other principles that may also be weak and any that are clearly NOT violated. Case: ‘To ensure the company retreat would not be cut, the manager of Lavina Company decided to save money by canceling the external audit of internal controls.’” |
What the AI said
ChatGPT identified the violation as a failure of “independent reviews / monitoring of controls,” explaining that an external audit provides objective verification and that cancelling it removes oversight and signals a weak control culture. It recommended keeping an independent review even on a reduced budget and flagged a secondary concern — the manager unilaterally cutting a control to protect a discretionary expense — as a “tone-at-the-top” risk. It stated that segregation of duties and recordkeeping were not the issue in this case.
Comparison and evaluation
Again the AI was correct and agreed with my answer. The terminology differed slightly — the AI leaned on the COSO word “monitoring,” while my textbook calls it “regular and independent reviews” — but it explicitly tied the two together. The additional information I had not considered was the tone-at-the-top point: the violation isn’t just a missing audit, it’s a manager prioritizing a perk over a control, which is a cultural red flag. That reframing was helpful because it connected a single textbook case to the broader control environment, which is exactly how an auditor would think.
Reflection: How the Exercise Built My Mastery
Using AI as a second opinion sharpened my understanding in three ways. First, the requirement to write my own answer before prompting forced active recall rather than passive lookup, which is when the principles actually stuck. Second, comparing my wording to the AI’s exposed how the same control idea travels under different labels — “separate custody from recordkeeping” versus “segregation of duties,” “independent reviews” versus “monitoring” — so I now recognize the concept regardless of vocabulary. Third, the prompt asking what was not violated trained me to define the boundaries of each principle, which is harder and more valuable than simply naming a violation.
The tool was not flawless: it occasionally over-generalized and would have been wrong if I had accepted its first label uncritically, which underscored that AI is a checking aid, not a substitute for understanding the framework. Overall, treating the AI like a junior colleague — give it a clear brief, then audit its work — reinforced both the internal-control concepts and the professional habit of verifying machine output before relying on it.
Common Mistakes That Cost Points
- Pasting the AI answer as your own analysis. The rubric needs your independent answer kept visibly separate.
- Naming the violation but not evaluating it. The 15-point comparison block rewards similarities, differences, and the value of extra information — not a one-word label.
- Forgetting to quote the scenario inside the prompt. The instructions explicitly require the problem statement “in quotes.”
- Ignoring the “what was NOT violated” question. It’s an easy way to show you understand the boundaries of each principle.
- Mismatched terminology with no explanation. If the AI uses different words than your textbook, say so — that’s a graded comparison point, not an error.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which free AI tool should I use for this assignment?
Any free tool is acceptable — ChatGPT, Microsoft Copilot, Google Gemini, or Claude. Pick one, name it, and justify the choice (free, accessible, conversational). Using the same tool for both scenarios keeps your comparison consistent.
Do I have to do all five cases?
No. The assignment asks you to select two of the five scenarios and complete each one individually.
What if the AI gives a different principle than my textbook?
That’s expected and gradeable. AI tools often use COSO terms (segregation of duties, monitoring) while your text uses its own labels. Note the difference and explain that they describe the same concept.
How long should each write-up be?
Half to a full page per scenario, covering all eight required questions in clear prose.
Is it okay to use AI for a graded assignment?
Here, yes — the assignment is specifically designed to have you use an AI tool and then critique it. The key is that your own analysis and reflection are your original work; the AI output is the object you’re evaluating, not the submission itself.
This guide and sample are provided as a study and learning reference. Use them to understand the assignment and check your own reasoning — submit only your own original work in line with your school’s academic-integrity policy.
