Reading Time: 11 minutes

Week 5 AI Assignment: Analyzing Internal Control (Problem 6-1A) With an AI Tool — Complete Guide + Worked Sample

Updated for current course terms | Aligned to the official grading rubric (40 points)

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.

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:

1. Choose any two of the five scenarios.
2. Write your own analysis first — identify the violated control principle without AI.
3. 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.”
4. Compare the AI’s answer to your own and write a half- to full-page reflection per scenario.

The rule students miss most often Your original analysis must be kept separate from the AI output. Instructors are grading your independent reasoning AND your ability to critique the machine. If you only paste the AI answer, you lose the two largest rubric blocks (Comparison + Reflection = 25 of 40 points).

The eight questions each write-up must answer

1. Which AI tool did you use, and why did you choose it?
2. What was the correct answer you identified yourself in the homework?
3. What principle did the AI say was violated?
4. Was the AI’s result correct?
5. Did the AI use different terminology than your textbook?
6. Did the AI flag other possible weaknesses — or state which principles were NOT violated?
7. Did the AI add anything you hadn’t considered? Was it helpful, and why or why not?
8. 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

Not sure which principle your scenario maps to? Message your two scenarios and we’ll confirm the exact principle and terminology your rubric wants. WhatsApp +1 564-544-6924

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]’.”

WORKED SAMPLE

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.

Deadline tonight? We’ve got you. Working nurses and grad students message us their scenario list and rubric — we return a polished, rubric-aligned draft fast, so you can submit with confidence and still get some sleep. WhatsApp +1 564-544-6924

Tap to chat on WhatsApp: +1 564-544-6924

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.