The Final 7 Days Before the CPA CFE: Gevorg CPA Memo to CFE Writers

Posted on by 0

Since all of you reading this are already deep in CFE mode, we thought we’d make this blog more digestible for you by writing it as a CFE memo. Please enjoy. And for any of you who are reading this in panic mode, from the GCPA team, we believe in you, you can do this, and we wish you nothing but the best!

To: CFE Candidates

From: Gevorg CPA Team

Date: September 8, 2026

Re: How to approach the final seven days before the CFE

Purpose

In the last week before every CFE, the GCPA team receives a similar version of the following question from our students: what should I actually be doing right now? This memo will provide context and insight into what your final days of preparation should, and sometimes more importantly, should not include.

Scope and assumptions

We have assumed the following. If any of these do not hold, the advice below will not fit your situation.

You are writing all three days of the CFE.
You have prepared consistently. You worked through PEP, completed Capstone 1 and Capstone 2, and you have written and debriefed cases over a period of months. Your preparation is substantially complete.
You are not starting from zero. If you began studying a week or two ago, this memo does not apply to you. Your priorities in the next seven days are different from the ones described here.
We count the final week backwards, so “seven days out” means one week before you write. When we refer to Day 1, Day 2, and Day 3, we mean the three days of the exam itself.

Analysis

Your exam fitness is already built, the final week can’t build more

Preparing for the CFE is a marathon. Your ability to read a case, rank the AOs, and write with the right balance of depth and breadth was not built in a week, and cannot be built in a week. It was built slowly, over months of technical work, repeated case writing, and feedback. No runner builds their fitness in the seven days before a race, and no candidate builds case-writing ability in the seven days before the CFE.

That has a consequence people tend to skip past. If the fitness is already built, the final week cannot meaningfully add to it. That said, there are two things that can happen in the final week. The first is supporting your head space or mental fortitude to challenge the exam. And the second, is over-working and over studying that ultimately fatigues you to the point of hurting your exam performance.

The first thing: protecting your head space

Head space is not a soft concept on this exam. It is the difference between reading a required and trusting your first read, or reading it four times and still not committing. It is the difference between ranking your AOs and moving, or second-guessing the ranking until you have burned twenty minutes you needed at the end. Confidence shows up as decisiveness, and decisiveness is what protects your time.

So the test for any activity this week is simple. Does this make me more settled, or less? Rereading your own debrief notes and seeing how much you have fixed since May does. A brand new question bank four days out does not, and neither does the group chat where everyone is announcing how many cases they have written. This is not the week to go looking for hard truths, because there is no longer time to act on them.

The second thing: over-working yourself into a worse result

The other thing that can happen this week is that you quietly spend the capacity you are going to need. This one is hard to see, because studying feels virtuous. Nobody feels guilty at hour ten, and the cost does not show up until the exam room.

The clearest version is the candidate who writes a full case three days out, performs poorly because they are already tired, and walks into Day 1 shaken. That result told them nothing useful, because what they measured was a depleted version of themselves. The quieter version is studying twelve hours a day right through to the night before and arriving on Day 1 already spent, performing several notches below what they are actually capable of.

Why fatigue shows up where it does

Treat your brain the way a runner treats their legs in the final week. It is a muscle, it has been under load for months, and it is not fresh. Capstone 2 drew it down, and the exam is going to ask you to hold up across three consecutive writing days, not one.

Fatigue also does not announce itself as feeling tired. It shows up as degraded judgement. You rank your AOs more slowly and keep revisiting the ranking. You write more, but shallower, because you are not confident enough to commit. You misread an AO required and catch it on the last page. You run out of time on the final case of Day 3. None of that is a knowledge failure. It is a capacity failure, and capacity is the one thing this week can genuinely change, in either direction.

What is still worth working on

To be clear, we are not telling you to do nothing for seven days. We are telling you to be honest about what seven days can actually move.

Not movable now: technical depth in an area you never learned properly, comfort with a competency you have avoided all year, or a real gap in your understanding of a standard. Going after these now costs energy and returns very little, and it tends to produce panic rather than knowledge.

Still worth your time now:

Debriefing. If you have cases sitting un-debriefed, that is the highest value work available to you this week. The learning on this exam happens in the debrief, not in the writing, and a proper debrief of a case you already wrote costs a fraction of the energy of writing a new one.
Thinking through and visualizing your approach. Walk yourself through how you open a case, how you rank the AOs, when you start writing, and what you do when a required runs long. You are rehearsing a routine you already have, not building a new one. This is the single cheapest way to arrive on Day 1 feeling like you know what you are doing.
Reminding yourself of high level concepts. Frameworks, decision points, the shape of a good analysis in each of the competency areas. Stay at altitude. This is not the week for paragraph 5 of a standard.
Reviewing generally through your own notes. Your summaries, your debrief notes, your Capstone 1 material. The point is familiarity and reassurance, not new coverage. You will be surprised how much you have absorbed since May, and noticing that is genuinely useful right now.
Taking care of yourself. Sleep properly. Eat real meals at normal times. Go for walks, ideally outside and without your phone. Have a few intentional conversations with people who are not writing the CFE and who will talk to you about something else. Move your body a little.

We want to be clear that the last one is not filler at the end of the list. Rest, food, movement, and human contact are what rebuild the capacity you are going to spend across three writing days, and they are what keep your head space steady while you wait. An hour of walking outside will do more for your Day 1 performance than an hour of rereading a standard you already know. That trade feels wrong, which is exactly why so few candidates make it.

Notice what everything on this list has in common. It is consolidation and recovery, not acquisition. Habits, familiarity, and capacity respond to light work in a week. Knowledge does not.

Recommendation

Taper. Bring your volume down deliberately over the next seven days so that your capacity comes back up and your head space stays intact. Front-load anything demanding into the first two days of the week, spend the middle on light targeted review, and use the final two days for logistics and rest.

Frequently asked questions

What should I study during the final week before the CFE?

Review your own debrief notes, your recurring weak habits, and your case approach, and refresh your Capstone 1 material. Practise finding guidance quickly rather than reading it deeply. Do not start new technical topics or new study materials in the final week, since there is no longer enough time for new knowledge to become usable under exam conditions.

Should I write full cases in the last few days?

No. Write your last full case around six or seven days out, then stop. Writing a full case within three days of the exam is a poor use of limited energy, and a weak result on a tired practice attempt tends to damage your confidence without telling you anything you can act on in time.

When should I stop studying before exam day?

Stop by midday the day before you write. A short, light review in the morning is fine. After that, the cost to your clarity on Day 1 outweighs anything you would gain. Use the rest of the day for packing, logistics, and rest.

What should I prepare for CFE exam day?

Confirm your writing location, start time, and arrival window. Plan your route with a buffer. Set aside your identification and only the permitted items. Complete any required hardware or software checks in advance. Pack layers for a cold room, along with food and water. Verify every requirement against the current instructions from CPA Canada and your regional body, since these vary by cycle and location.

How can I sleep better the night before the CFE, and does it really matter?

Honestly, you are probably not going to sleep well the night before, and that is fine. Almost nobody does, and you have already worked and studied on very little sleep plenty of times. Bank your sleep in the week beforehand, when you can actually control it, then stop worrying about the last night. Keep your usual bedtime rather than getting into bed unusually early, stop studying by midday, get some daylight and light movement, and keep screens and the group chat out of the last hour. Have everything packed and your alarms set so nothing is unresolved. If you lie awake anyway, accept it and move on.

CPA CFE Exam Stress: Final-Month Guide | Gevorg CPA

Posted on by Comments Off

How to Tackle Unknown AOs on the CFE

Picture this: You are writing Day 2 or Day 3 of the CFE. You just systematically completed a standard inventory valuation, worked through a variance analysis, and you are managing your time perfectly. You flip to the next appendix, read the first paragraph, and realize you are being asked for the accounting treatment of a crypto-backed joint venture in deep-sea mining.

Welcome to the “Unknown AO.”

Every year, the Board of Examiners (BOE) includes Assessment Opportunities (AOs) on the CFE that are completely non-routine, obscure, or nowhere to be found in your standard study templates. As a CPA exam coach here at Gevorg CPA, I see our candidates struggle with these issues very often. In the recent release of the May 2025 report, BOE told candidates to prepare better in this area. As part of our review of this most recent BOE report, we are tackling this issue within this article. We will highlight some of the key tactics we teach to handle these unknown AOs.

The Perspective Shift

Why does the BOE do this?

The BOE explicitly includes these unusual AOs because they want to see if you, as a future Canadian CPA, can handle the unknown in a professional environment. The test isn’t just about your technical memory; it’s about applying the CPA Way (Assess → Analyze → Conclude → Communicate) to an accounting scenario you have never encountered before.

They are testing your ability to process the unknown quickly, provide a commercially reasonable response, and move on. Spending 40 minutes hunting through Knotia for the perfect technical answer to one unknown FR AO is like spending three hours perfectly formatting the fonts on a balance sheet while leaving the income statement completely blank. You have robbed precious time from the routine AOs that actually guarantee your pass.

Remember: If it’s weird to you, it’s weird to everyone. You are competing against the curve. The candidate sitting next to you is grappling with this exact same issue. Keep your composure and execute your strategy.

Have a Planned Response

When you encounter the unknown in Financial Reporting, where we see the majority if Unknown AOs, you need to stop and think about the issue first before jumping to find the applicable handbook section. First, consider how to bucket the topic, then guide yourself to apply a framework:

1. Labeling the Unknown: Identification IS Half the Battle

First things first: simply identifying and labeling an AO as “unknown” is half the battle.

The unknown AO trap on the CFE happens when you panic and try to treat a non-routine AO exactly like a routine one. Trying to forcefully fit an obscure, software licensing issue into a standard 5-step IFRS 15 Revenue Recognition template won’t work, and it will certainly burn valuable time that should be spent tackling the rest of the exam.

True exam confidence doesn’t mean having a photographic memory of the CPA Canada Handbook. Confidence comes from knowing what is not routine. When you read a prompt and recognize that it is highly unusual, validate that professional judgment. Actively labeling it as an “Unknown AO” in your mind stops you from wasting time searching for a perfect template that does not exist.

2. Bucket the Issue

For technical FR AOs where you aren’t clear what it is, what the actual accounting issue is, and therefore what the actual GAAP standard to consider is, the trick is to first avoid panic. Stop and really think about: What IS the thing in question?

If you had to bucket it into a category, or describe it to someone, where does it fit?

Is it kind of like an asset? Is it a piece of equipment, is it cash, or an investment?
Is it kind of like a liability? Are you going to owe someone money?
Is it kind of like an expense? Has someone done work for you, or will you owe someone because of a service?
Is it kind of like equity? Have you issued shares, or granted an ownership stake?

For example: Imagine the case introduces a complex “government carbon emission credit.” Instead of freezing because you’ve never studied carbon credits, bucket it. The company purchased them, owns them, and will use them to avoid future fines. It holds future economic value, so it is kind of like an asset—specifically, an intangible one.

Thinking about the issue in this way is going to make your Knotia search significantly easier, and will help get you somewhere in terms of answering the “what is this?” question before you apply a formal framework.

3. Apply a Technical Framework

Once you have bucketed the issue, try searching Knotia. Search the specific trigger words right out of the case alongside your new bucket category. Grab the closest criteria you can find, framed with support from your bucketing activity above, and apply it. We say this often to our students, you need to practice desperate Knotia searches as part of your studying. You will quickly learn that searching in Knotia is not as slick as you would like it to be. The more specific and unique your search word is, the more useful the search result. Do not try this for the first time on exam date.

If your search comes up empty and you are completely lost in the Handbook, stop, and default to the three key components of any accounting standard:

Recognition: When does it go on the books?
Measurement: How much is it worth?
Disclosure: What do we tell the users of the financial statements?

4. Bare minimum: Case facts + so what + recommendation

When all else fails, write whatever reasonable accounting logic comes to mind, but you MUST apply case facts from the appendices, and you ALWAYS provide a recommendation.

You can draft the most logical analysis in the world, but if it doesn’t use the specific numbers, quotes, or situations provided in the case, you aren’t scoring points. You need to integrate the case facts (to Assess the situation), structure your logic using handbook criteria or the Big Three (to Analyze the issue), make a definitive journal entry or treatment recommendation (to Conclude), and ensure your advice is clear and actionable for the client (to Communicate). The BOE rewards candidates who make a decision over those who skip the issue.

Get support at Gevorg CPA

You don’t have to face the CFE curveballs alone, register for a Gevorg CPA CFE Prep program today.

We will help you navigate this exact challenge and much more. From mastering “Unknown AOs” to perfecting your time management and building rock-solid technical frameworks, we provide the grounded, strategic coaching you need to conquer the CFE.

Don’t leave your exam success to chance. Join us today.

June 2026 CFE Debrief: Our Take on the Day 1, 2 & 3 Cases

Posted on by Comments Off

The June 2026 CFE cases have now been released. As in the past, CPA has released only the cases, and not the accompanying solutions. Based on the past schedule, we expect the formal solutions to be released later in the year, and after the September 2026 CFE is written.

As our writers came out of the exam rooms across the country, our discussion boards were flooded with their thoughts and emotions about the cases. After a few weeks of suspense we are finally able to open the cases and see for ourselves what our cohort went up against. We’re going to go day by day through the cases and give our thoughts on the exam itself, and also what we think it tells us for the September 2026 CFE.

For those interested, our team will be publishing GCPA Strong Answers for the June 2026 CFE cases — we’ll provide more information and links below.

Overall Impressions of the June 2026 CFE

Overall, what did we think of this exam? First of all, we were very impressed with the quality and complexity of the cases in this sitting. We thought the exams were more intricate than usual, which makes a case much more difficult to write and test, so we thought this was a very well-constructed exam.

Day 1 we thought was mostly fair, but somewhat more challenging than a typical sitting. Anticipating the conclusions of next year’s CPA Canada Board of Examiners’ Report, we suspect a number of candidates will have struggled with the heightened emphasis on big-picture judgment, particularly where the constraints and objectives were more complex, though still realistic. Day 2 was demanding — the AOs were quite complex and there weren’t any real quick wins. The case facts and data also felt messy, which understandably left many students feeling flustered. Day 3, by contrast, was fair — arguably slightly generous. As a reminder, just because an exam felt hard, or was challenging as presented, does not speak to how it will be marked or how many students will pass.

Day 1: The KBC and VTL cases

Day 1 is the strategic case linked to Capstone 1. The June sitting ran two versions: KBC (Karnat Bread Company) and VTL V2 (Viviana’s Trattoria).

We thought KBC was a moderately challenging case, comprising four strategic issues and what we read as two additional issues. The principal challenge was not the individual issues, but the effort demanded by the overall recommendation and the work required to establish a clear strategic direction. This is where we expect to see candidates struggle.

It is also where one of our pre-exam predictions proved accurate. Ahead of each CFE, we forecast the likely direction of the exam and prepare our students accordingly. For June, we predicted that CPA Canada would require candidates to form an overall recommendation in which the governing constraint or objective was not obvious or simple. For example, four strategic issues are presented, one is eliminated on weak quantitative support, three remain feasible, yet only two can be pursued under a genuine financial or capacity constraint. This form of testing has challenged candidates in the past, and our expectation was that CPA Canada would extend it rather than retreat from it. Our review of the case, together with feedback from our students, indicates that this is precisely what occurred.

We thought VTL shared this character. The notable feature here was that most of the available options appeared feasible, or at least not obvious to reject. In our experience, that’s usually much harder for candidates to navigate. In addition to forcing them to truly think, we expect many candidates doubted their analyses and likely panicked because of this. In both of these Day 1 cases, CPA required candidates to follow the CPA Way to reason carefully toward the most defensible strategic direction.

Key Takeaways for Day 1

Be prepared to demonstrate strategic decision-making. Through its Board Reports, CPA Canada has consistently indicated that it expects candidates to demonstrate genuine strategic decision-making. Success on Day 1 can no longer be secured through issue-by-issue technical work alone; a strong framework will not compensate for an overall conclusion that lacks substantive reasoning.

Use a decision matrix. Both cases presented a substantial number of competing objectives (the board’s priorities, the owner’s priorities, and so on), which you were required to track and tie back to your recommendation. We have always taught our students to use a decision matrix to organize their overall conclusion, but in these Day 1 exams it would have been even more critical given the volume of variables students had to keep track of.

Manage your time. Neglecting the overall conclusion is a well-established fatal flaw on a Day 1 case. Given the demands of the overall conclusions in these two cases, candidates should protect their time budget strictly. This means keeping the work required for the individual strategic issues as concise and efficient as possible.

If you need help mastering these strategies, review our guide on how to approach Day 1 here.

June 2026 CFE Day 2 (ETA Case) Analysis

Feedback from our students on the Day 2 case, ETA, was consistent and pointed: it was among the most demanding cases they had encountered. For the most part we would agree with them. It was still a fair exam, but the way the case was presented added some compounding challenges for candidates. It was a rigorous test of comprehension — not merely of technical knowledge, but of your ability to make sense of a complex, realistic case under time pressure.

Two features made ETA particularly demanding:

Dispersal of data. Whereas earlier Day 2 cases tended to consolidate the figures required for a given calculation within a single appendix, ETA distributed them throughout the case. Candidates had to locate and assemble information from multiple points simply to complete individual calculations, placing a significant load on reading comprehension and data organization.

Absence of accessible material. Cases will often provide one or two straightforward issues to build confidence. ETA instead presented three tough Financial Reporting (FR) issues — componentization, an Asset Retirement Obligation (ARO), and a principal-versus-agent revenue determination — each requiring multi-step analysis and detailed application of the Handbook.

As we said earlier, this doesn’t mean more people will fail. The biggest risk we see is the panic we expect it caused candidates. One or two easy AOs are confidence builders and can give candidates the mental strength to continue. Navigating confusing data and challenging topics is likely to cause downstream effects on the quality of case fact integration, conclusions, and more — ultimately putting candidates at risk of failure.

For September, the implication is clear: technical proficiency alone is insufficient without the ability to organize a complex case and manage the emotions of an unsettling one.

Day 3: A fair examination, and a lesson in composure

The June Day 3 cases were fair, with most students expressing some confidence in most of the AOs that were presented. We agreed with that assessment when we did our review.

Our biggest concern for our students after Day 2, and what we did our best to coach them through, was staying positive for Day 3. Our expectation, though we hope to be wrong, is that many candidates will have carried the Day 2 shadow of doubt and panic into Day 3, and performed worse than they typically would have on relatively achievable AOs and cases.

The sequence merits comment. A demanding Day 2 was followed by a fair, arguably generous, Day 3 — and this carries a genuine strategic lesson. A difficult day does not portend a difficult one to follow; frequently the reverse holds. The principal risk in June was not that Day 3 proved hard, but that a discouraging Day 2 might be carried into a Day 3 that was, in fact, highly manageable. You cannot allow a difficult day to compromise a favourable one. Deliberate composure between days is essential.

Implications for the September 2026 CFE

We have not seen the solutions and cannot know how CPA Canada will mark or scale this sitting. However, for candidates writing in September, here is what we think you should be thinking about, given what we can gauge from the June 2026 CFE cases:

Day 1: Treat the overall recommendation as central, allow sufficient time to develop it, and prepare to exercise judgment rather than mechanically process issues.

Day 2: Command the technical mechanics, but also develop the comprehension required to interpret a case efficiently when data is dispersed.

Day 3: Lean into the mental dimension of the exam. Whatever September presents, a deliberate strategy for resetting between days and approaching each with composure is essential.

Practising with the June 2026 cases

At GCPA, we prepare Strong Answers for several past CFE cases; they represent our attempt at writing the exam, as a student would, to prepare a realistic but high-quality response that reflects what a strong student could reasonably produce in the time available. Our students use them to debrief their own writing, as they demonstrate what a passing response genuinely looks like on the page — using the templates and formats we recommend — rather than an idealized answer that few could achieve under exam conditions.

Most students like to practise with the most recently offered exams. For the June 2026 CFE, specifically, we are preparing Day 2 and Day 3 Strong Answers for candidates to leverage in their studying for September 2026. These materials are currently being finalized. We will post the link here as soon as they become available; please check back shortly.

They will be available at the following link: https://gevorgcpa.com/cfe-cases/

For Day 1 writers, we have the following practice resources specific to your Day 1 Capstone Case:

MEI V2 writers:

GCPA Strong Answer to the MEI V1 case

(note that formal CPA solutions are not yet available for the MEI V1 case)

GCPA Sample Case for MEI

(This is an additional practice case and solution for those writing MEI V2 in September to use for practice)

STC writers:

GCPA Sample Case for STC – available soon and will be posted here

(This is an additional practice case and solution for those writing STC in September to use for practice)

Frequently Asked Questions About the June 2026 CFE

Was the June 2026 CFE difficult?

Based on our review and feedback from candidates, the June 2026 CFE was challenging, particularly on Day 2. The Day 1 cases required stronger strategic judgment than many previous sittings, while Day 2 demanded a high level of technical knowledge, reading comprehension, and organization. Day 3 was comparatively fair and gave many candidates an opportunity to recover from a difficult second day. We will have to wait until we receive the Board of Examiners Report to see how the exams were ultimately graded.

What were the June 2026 CFE cases?

The June 2026 CFE included two Day 1 cases, KBC (Karnat Bread Company) and VTL (Viviana’s Trattoria), along with Emerald Tours and Air Limited (or ETA), the Day 2 case and the Day 3 multi-case examination. Each case tested different competencies, including strategic analysis, financial reporting, assurance, management accounting, taxation, finance, and overall professional judgment.

Should September 2026 CFE writers practise the June 2026 CFE cases?

Yes. The June 2026 CFE provides valuable insight into the level of complexity and judgment expected by CPA Canada. Practising these cases helps candidates strengthen their technical knowledge, improve time management, and become more comfortable working through realistic case scenarios before writing the September 2026 CFE.

When will the June 2026 CFE solutions be released?

At the time of writing, CPA Canada has released the June 2026 CFE cases but has not yet published the official solutions. Based on previous examination cycles, the formal solutions are typically released by CPA Canada after the September 2026 CFE has been completed.

What can candidates learn from the June 2026 CFE?

One of the biggest lessons from the June 2026 CFE, our interpretation, is that success will require more than technical knowledge. Candidates needed to demonstrate sound professional judgment, manage complex case information efficiently, prioritize their time effectively, and remain composed throughout all three examination days. These skills should continue to be a major focus for anyone preparing for future CFE sittings.

Where can I find practice materials for the June 2026 CFE?

Candidates looking to practise with the June 2026 CFE can begin by reviewing the released CPA Canada cases and comparing their responses against high-quality sample solutions. GCPA is also preparing Strong Answers for the June 2026 CFE to help candidates understand what a well-structured passing response looks like under actual exam conditions. The link to the cases is here.

Need a Push to Get Back on Track with PERT? Consider This Your Push.

Posted on by Comments Off

Many of our June 2026 CFE writers have been messaging us about their PERT updates, and man, does that make us proud! If you’re sitting around patiently waiting for August 21st, why not do something constructive that will actually reduce your stress at the same time?

We understand the necessity of PERT, but in our experience, we have yet to meet a candidate who truly enjoys updating their Practical Experience Reporting Tool (PERT). If you’re reading this and you are a fan of it, be sure to reach out and tell us! Most CPA candidates find it to be tedious, the character limits are frustrating, and translating everyday work into CPA jargon can feel like pulling teeth.

Because of this, it is incredibly common for candidates to push it off. But if you know you are behind on your reports, or if you are dodging your mentor because you missed a meeting, listen up.

This is your sign from the universe to get this sorted NOW. Here is why avoiding PERT is a bad idea, why the clock is ticking faster than you think, and how you can catch up without completely overwhelming yourself before the fall.

Why You Can’t Keep Avoiding PERT

The biggest risk with PERT is the cumulative effect of neglect. Remembering what you did at work last month is relatively easy. Trying to remember specific, complex scenarios you navigated 14 months ago? Nearly impossible.

When you avoid PERT, you aren’t just delaying the pain; you are actively making the process harder for your future self. You risk forgetting the great examples that would have easily gotten you a Level 2 in a technical competency. Plus, even if you crush the CFE, you won’t get those three letters behind your name until your experience is approved. Don’t be the person who passes the exam but has to wait another year and a half to actually become a CPA because their PERT is a mess.

Give Yourself Time to Pivot if You Need To

Depending on your work experience and job details, you want to be absolutely sure that you are capturing sufficiently complex work experience examples within your planned competency areas. Unfortunately, one common problem we see is that candidates have an expected job plan, and then things change—a new role, a company switch, or perhaps a termination. This can throw a very significant wrench into someone’s PERT planning. It is critical that you keep a very close eye on your experience and how you plan to get your remaining levels.

This brings us to the importance of submitting PER on time. If you put your reporting off, you run the risk of getting unexpected feedback from the CPA reviewer, such as them disagreeing with the complexity of your examples or stating you lack the work evidence to support them. In some cases, candidates even need to request new work assignments from their employers to complete the necessary experience.

If you find yourself in a situation where you need to do this, and you don’t have enough time remaining in your PERT, you will have just created an incredibly stressful and challenging situation. We have seen this happen quite often. It’s not enjoyable for anyone, and it is entirely avoidable.

Avoid the PERT Extension Request

At the end of the day, waiting will not make PERT any easier. In fact, you run a serious risk of running into unexpected issues with your experience or scrambling to find required documentation from past employers.

We unfortunately see this happen quite often with students: they wait until the last minute, discover their experience isn’t hitting the right levels, and are suddenly put in a situation where they need to formally request an extension. Filing an extension request adds a massive amount of unnecessary time, paperwork, and stress to your plate. All of this can be avoided by staying on track, or catching up now, so you have a comfortable buffer of time to address any issues that come up.

While CPA Canada will often consider an extension request, the extra ‘life admin’ you are adding to your plate to do this is truly not enjoyable either.

Finish Within the Current Program

As all CPA candidates are aware, the new CPA Certification Program is being released in 2027, and this will include a brand-new PERT system. Candidates reporting under the current program will need to finish their reporting under the current rules, and then transition to the new program if necessary.

We are still waiting for specific details about the new program, but we don’t need the exact details to know that simply transitioning between a current program and a new program will cause some confusion—even for those who are fully caught up on PERT. Compounding this confusion with catch-up reporting or extension requests creates a very complicated problem for you to solve with the CPA reviewers.

You do not want to be caught in the messy middle. Transitioning half-finished, poorly documented experience into a brand-new system could mean unexpected delays or administrative headaches. Your goal should be to finish your experience requirements smoothly within the current program.

How to Start Now

If you are months (or years) behind, looking at the entire mountain of work will just cause you to procrastinate more. Instead, focus on building momentum so you have a lighter mental load going into the busy fall season.

Here is your step-by-step rescue plan:

Lower the bar: Just do ONE fresh report. Do not sit down and try to write two years of experience in one weekend. Open the portal and commit to writing just one fresh, updated report for your most recent period. Getting a single report submitted breaks the seal of procrastination.
Send the “awkward” email to your mentor. If you’ve ghosted your mentor, take a deep breath and send a brief, honest email. “Hi [Name], I know I’ve fallen behind on my reporting, but I am actively getting back on track. I am submitting a new report this week. Can we schedule a quick catch-up meeting for next week?” They have been through the CPA journey; they will understand. Just rip the band-aid off.
Set a weekly 30-minute timer. Once that first report is in, block off just 30 minutes every Friday to brain-dump your work tasks into a Word document. Keep a running list of complex problems you solved, meetings you led, or analysis you performed. When your next report is due, the material will already be there.

Need help getting unstuck?

You don’t have to figure out the “PERT language” on your own. If you are staring at a blank screen, unsure of how to align your daily tasks with CPA competencies, or if your reports keep getting downgraded by reviewers, we have programs to help you. Take control of your PERT now. Get that one report in, schedule your mentor meeting, and step into the fall feeling lighter, prepared, and one step closer to your letters! Check out our PERT programs here.

As you’re getting started, check out our free resources in these articles:

Final CFE Exam Reminders from your GCPA Team

Posted on by Comments Off

Welcome to the final stretch! Test week is finally here. You’ve put in the countless hours of studying, writing practice cases, and debriefing. As you prepare to cross the finish line of the CFE, it’s crucial to approach the exam with the right mindset and strategy. Here is a summary of our top final tips to ensure you perform at your absolute best during the CFE. These are not new. These are your reminders to keep top of mind as you visualize your exam execution this week.

1. Avoid Fatal Flaws for Day 1

Day 1 of the CFE assesses your enabling skills and strategic decision-making. Passing relies on avoiding major critical errors. Here are the “fatal flaws” you must avoid at all costs:

Missing the Big Picture: Failing to align your analysis and recommendations with the company’s overall mission, vision, and strategic goals established in Capstone 1 or newly presented in the case, and the likely new Board objectives or directly presented to you.
Ignoring Constraints: Overlooking critical constraints such as limited cash, restrictive debt covenants, timeline limits, or a founder’s specific personal preferences.
Lack of Integration: Treating the situational analysis as a standalone checklist rather than integrating the SWOT, KSFs, and quantitative factors directly into your analysis of the strategic options. Remember, the SAF itself is just a list, the integration happens within each individual SI throughout the Day 1 exam.
Failing to Conclude: Ending your memo without a clear, holistic overall recommendation that synthesizes all the issues discussed and clearly guides the board. Do not spin your wheels and extra time in an individual Strategic Issue, at the cost of a missed overall conclusion at the end.

2. Don’t Get Stuck in Knotia

While the CPA Canada Handbook (Knotia) and the Income Tax Act are available to you in the exam software, they can quickly become your biggest enemies if you aren’t careful. Do not use Knotia as a primary learning tool during the exam. Only search Knotia if you know exactly what standard you are looking for (e.g., pulling the specific recognition criteria for capitalized development costs). Spending 15 minutes endlessly scrolling through standards to learn a topic from scratch will destroy your time budget. Rely on your memory, the triggers you’ve practiced, and your case-writing instincts as much as possible.

3. Stick to the Recommended Time for Each Individual Day 3 Case

Day 3 is a sprint. You will face 3 to 4 shorter cases (usually 3 cases ranging from 70 to 90 minutes each). The biggest trap candidates fall into is “borrowing” time from the second or third case to finish the first one. Do not do this. Each case has its own separate Assessment Opportunities (AOs). If you spend 100 minutes on an 80-minute case, you might turn a few “Reaching Competent” grades into “Competent”, but you will likely score “Not Addressed” on several AOs in the final case because you ran out of time. Once your time for a Day 3 case is up, wrap up your current sentence and forcefully move on to the next case.

A Final word from the GCPA Team

Trust the process. We believe in you. You have put in the hard work and built your technical knowledge and case writing abilities. Take a deep breath, manage your time ruthlessly, and go crush the CFE!

We’ll see you on the other side.

The September 2025 CFE BOE Report – what’s the ‘so what’

Posted on by Comments Off

Just weeks before the upcoming CFE, CPA Canada dropped the September 2025 Board of Examiners (BOE) report. We know that getting a massive PDF of examiner feedback right before you walk into the exam room can feel intense, but take a deep breath, and let’s walk through it together.

While this feedback is incredibly important, our review of the material is that the feedback is largely consistent with past feedback. Think of this report not as a list of new things to panic-learn, but rather as a set of timely, critical reminders for the core case-writing strategies you already know. We have pulled out the key points noted by the BOE, and added our interpretation of this feedback. If you are a June 2026 CFE writer, reference this as you remind yourself how you will be focusing your case strategy, but know these are all the exact skills you have been working on the last few months.

For September 2026 writers, you should review this in detail as an important component for preparing for your exam. These points will be pivotal in your preparation for the CFE.

What Didn’t Surprise Us: The Usual Suspects

Honestly, when reviewing this report, nothing truly surprised us. The traps candidates fell into in September 2025 are the exact same hurdles we have seen for years, and they remain the core focus of our GCPA programs.

1. The Case Fact Integration Trap

The BOE highlighted yet again that candidates are failing to properly integrate case facts into their analysis. We call this the “parallel lines” problem: a candidate states a technical accounting rule and drops a case fact right next to it, but fails to actually connect the two. They run parallel, never intersecting.

Stating a rule and dropping a number from the case does not earn you a Competent (C). You must explain the “So what?”

Weak: “Per IFRS 15, performance obligations must be distinct. The company sells software with a two-year maintenance agreement.”
Strong (Integrated): “Per IFRS 15, performance obligations must be distinct. Because the maintenance agreement provides a separate service over two years that the customer benefits from independently, it is a separate performance obligation. Therefore, revenue cannot be recognized all at once.”

We actually made a highly requested YouTube video breaking this exact issue down based on the May 2025 BOE report. It came up yet again in the September 2025 report as a primary reason candidates failed to reach C.

2. The Panic Over “Unknown AOs”

Another trend that didn’t surprise us is how candidates freeze when faced with non-routine Assessment Opportunities (AOs).

The BOE noted that when candidates encountered a technical Financial Reporting (FR) or Strategy & Governance issue that didn’t perfectly match a pre-memorized study template, many completely abandoned the “CPA Way.” Instead of stepping back and applying a basic framework, writers wasted valuable time doing frantic Knotia searches or writing disorganized brain dumps.

Identification is half the battle. If you struggle with this, revisit our article on How to Tackle Unknown AOs on the CFE, where we break down the exact step-by-step framework to secure partial marks without spiraling out of your time budget.

Why Candidates Failed: A Day-by-Day Breakdown & Action Items

To protect your pass, you need to understand exactly where the previous cohort tripped. Here are the direct quotes from the BOE, paired with our exact GCPA interpretations and immediate action items.

Day 1 Failures

BOE Quote: “Candidates who were not successful tended to treat the situational analysis as an independent exercise, failing to link the constraints and strategic goals to their evaluation of the strategic options.”

- GCPA Interpretation: The point of listing the SAF at the start of your response, is for it to be the basis for you to integrate the key points within your response below. Just listing the situation analysis factors, and failing to integrate them, does not get you any marks.

BOE Quote: “Weak responses often restated case numbers without applying the specific adjustments requested by the board of directors, lacking the depth required for quantitative analysis.”

- GCPA Interpretation: For Day 1, simply copying and pasting exhibit data into Excel gets you zero marks. You must execute the specific “what if” scenarios (e.g., a 10% drop in sales) explicitly requested by the board to show the true financial impact. Use the case facts you have been given, there is a reason for all of them and CPA Canada wants you to consider and comment on these.

BOE Quote: “Many candidates did not integrate the operational issues into the broader strategic direction of the company, resulting in siloed and fragmented recommendations.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Operational issues (like a broken IT system or staffing shortage) aren’t isolated problems—they actively prevent the company from achieving its main goals. Connect the operational fix back to the overarching strategy. In the GCPA CFE review program, we teach our students to use a Decision Matrix to ensure they capture all key components necessary to prepare a proper overall recommendation.

BOE Quote: “A common deficiency among unsuccessful candidates was the lack of a holistic conclusion that synthesized the overall mandate and provided a clear, supported final recommendation.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Choosing an option at the end is not enough. You must step back, answer the overarching question the CEO or Board hired you to solve on page one, and explain how all your recommendations work together as a cohesive plan. For GCPA students – this issue is also addressed by appropriately utilizing a decision matrix and our overall conclusion approach.

Day 2 Failures

BOE Quote: “Unsuccessful candidates in the depth roles often provided superficial, bulleted lists that did not adequately use the specific case facts to support their analysis.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Day 2 is about proving you are an expert in your chosen role. High-level, surface bullet points fail the depth test. You have to thoroughly exhaust the case facts and explain the detailed implications specific to your role.

BOE Quote: “Some candidates spent excessive time quoting accounting handbook criteria for complex financial reporting issues but failed to conclude on the final accounting treatment.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Copy-pasting massive blocks of text from Knotia gets you zero marks if you don’t actually tell the client what to do. If you write out the IFRS criteria but forget to state, “Therefore, capitalize the asset,” the marker cannot guess your intent.

BOE Quote: “We noted a recurring issue where candidates struggled with time management, leaving common core assessment opportunities unaddressed or severely underdeveloped.”

- GCPA Interpretation: You cannot sacrifice the common core for your role. If you spend 3.5 hours hyper-focusing on your specific depth role and leave the mandatory Financial Reporting (FR) and Management Accounting (MA) AOs blank, you will automatically fail Level 2.
- One area that can really hurt a candidate is going on a Knotia treasure hunt. Knotia is available to you, but it should be used with caution. If you do NOT know where you are going, you should give yourself a strict 3-minute limit with which to treasure hunt in Knotia. Losing time in Knotia has been a proven cause of failure due to missing other AOs because of running out of time.
- At GCPA, we teach outlining and preparing a detailed time budget for Day 2. If you do not stick to your time budget, you will run out of time, and you will be at risk of failing due to this common issue.

BOE Quote: “Candidates failed to recognize the broader implications of management accounting issues, performing basic calculations but omitting the critical qualitative analysis.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Calculating a variance or a breakeven point is only half the job. The qualitative analysis—explaining why the variance happened and what management should do about it—is what actually secures the C grade. You must bring the numbers back to the case, and apply the numbers to your conclusion and recommendation. Numbers without analysis are just math, and the CFE is not a math exam.

Day 3 Failures

BOE Quote: “Time management remains a significant issue on Day 3, with candidates attempting to reach excessive depth on early assessment opportunities at the expense of later ones.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Day 3 is a breadth day. Trying to write a flawless, Day 2-level response on the very first AO will ruin your time budget. You need to aim for a solid “RC” (Reaching Competence) across the board and keep moving. We posted an article about this recently as well, check it out here.

BOE Quote: “Candidates often provided misdirected responses, answering what they thought was the issue rather than addressing the specific question asked by the user in the case.”

- GCPA Interpretation: When rushing through an AO, candidates sometimes forget the exact issue and details requested, and either make assumptions or just assume they are being asked for items they might have seen in a past case. Read the specific user’s question carefully and address their actual concern, rather than regurgitating a memorized template that doesn’t fit the scenario.
- At GCPA we advise students to write a fairly detailed Issue statement, even though issue statements themselves are not awarded marks, it helps to remind students of exactly what the AO is asking without having to revisit the case narrative. In the heat of an AO response, it is very easy to forget the specifics of an issue, and being able to glance up at your own response and see the exact details there, can save you.

BOE Quote: “There was a noticeable failure to identify hidden assessment opportunities, particularly in Strategy and Governance, where triggers were subtle.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Because candidates are rushing on Day 3, they skim right past subtle, one-sentence triggers for S&G or Assurance issues. Actively hunt for these embedded requests; they will not always have a neat heading. In our view, this is the ‘heart’ of the Day 3 exam – needing to go into enough depth to present a real analysis with case facts, but moving on quickly to tackle the rest of the exam, and therefore master breadth.

BOE Quote: “A large number of candidates failed to demonstrate breadth, missing the ‘Reaching Competence’ threshold on multiple AOs simply because they ran out of time to provide any response.”

- GCPA Interpretation: Spending 25 minutes on a 9-minute AO guarantees you will leave the final three AOs completely blank. Dropping the pen when the time budget expires is a non-negotiable survival skill. This is the flip side of the issue discussed above where candidates skim over an AO too quickly.

We talk about this at GCPA often. The BOE has told us that the Day 3 exam tests candidates’ discipline to manage time, address an issue, and move on. They are not hiding this from us, so we want candidates to really understand this and incorporate it in their exam approach.

Final Thoughts and References

You can read the full September 2025 BOE report here.

Remember, the BOE is trying to give you the information you need to succeed and if you consider their feedback and do your best to focus your studies accordingly you can absolutely do this.

Looking for CFE support? Review the resources, templates, and CPA coaching programs available at www.gevorgcpa.com to help navigate your path to becoming a Canadian CPA.

CFE Strategy – Time Management

Posted on by Comments Off

Time management is something a lot of our GevorgCPA CFE writers are asking about right now. Time management issues show up in many different ways, but they almost always boil down to the same core frustrations:

You aren’t getting through your Assessment Opportunities (AOs) on time.
You aren’t able to write down enough pros, cons, or other qualitative factors.
You read the CPA feedback guides and think, “How on earth do the answers get to that level of detail?!”.

Let’s dig into this, because what students are noticing on the surface isn’t always the whole picture. Time management itself isn’t always the actual issue.

Usually, running out of time is simply the resulting symptom of an underlying weakness. That weakness presents itself as the physical inability to get everything down fast enough, but the root cause is often tied to how you are studying, reading, or processing information.

There are a few complexities to unpack here. Before we start diagnosing your technical knowledge or exam strategies, we need to level the playing field. Students compare their exams to the CFE solutions and realize they look nothing alike.

“My answer looks nothing like the solution guide!”

Even for students who are enrolled with Gevorg CPA, we hear this all the time. For many past CFE cases, we have created what we call “GCPA strong solutions,” which are meant to mimic a solid “C” (Competent) response. Our students love this resource because it shows them what a realistic strong answer looks like, and we need to remind them that these solutions are meant to be realistic, but also almost perfectly accurate (otherwise we would confuse you), even though your response doesn’t have to be perfect.

If you aren’t studying with us and are comparing your practice responses directly to the formal CPA Canada solutions, chances are you are experiencing this panic as well! CPA Canada solutions are often above-perfect answers that are unrealistic for candidates to write under strict exam conditions.

Embrace the Ambiguity

Let’s understand the why.

For CPA Canada, they have an obligation to write a “textbook-like” solution because they are, in fact, an educational institution. If they published an abbreviated, messy exam-day version, it wouldn’t properly represent the formally perfect technical standard. Their solution also needs to represent the un-curved “Strong” response. Even if 95% of students missed a highly technical nuance under exam conditions, CPA Canada can’t just leave it out of their master solution guide.

At GCPA, we attempt to make our strong answers representative of what a highly prepared student would actually write. But, because we are publishing these sample answers for our students to study from, we take great care to double-check our work and remove any mistakes. We do this simply to ensure we aren’t confusing our team or our writers.

The reality is that a perfectly polished response is NOT the expectation of a student who is in good shape to pass the CFE.

Students desperately want a simple source of truth. You want a guide to tell you exactly whether or not you did a good job, and if your specific response will result in a pass. The hard fact is, that perfect yardstick just doesn’t exist. And it’s not because we have all that information and won’t give it to you—it’s because the exam itself, and what will and won’t count as a pass, depends on how you and your peers perform, not something that stays exactly standard year after year. The most we can aim for are targets and patterns.

It is something you are just going to have to accept. I know this level of ambiguity is usually completely outside the comfort zone for accountants—we like our balance sheets to balance; we don’t like “it depends”!

What this reality pushes you to do is compile context and knowledge to assess your progress using multiple sources. As you write dozens of cases, you will start to notice patterns. You will realize which cases were straightforward and which were absolute curveballs. Simple cases usually demand a more thorough, detailed response to achieve a “C”, while complex cases often offer much more leniency on the marking curve because everyone is struggling.

Diagnosing the Real Problem: Where Are You Actually Losing Time?

Now, a word of caution: accepting ambiguity does not mean turning a blind eye to a failing grade.

If you have accepted the ambiguity of the solution guides, but you are still consistently running out of time, missing the mark, and you aren’t getting good feedback from your peers, your study group, or a dedicated marker, you need to get serious about diagnosing the root cause.

At GCPA, when we break down the 3 key pillars of CFE preparation, we look at: Technical knowledge, Case writing skills, and Strategy. Your high-level strategy (like preparing a study plan and knowing the passing profile) is a critical part of overall case success. However, when we look at time management specifically, strategy is much less relevant to your physical speed on exam day.

If your high-level strategy is perfect but you cannot retrieve information or type your analysis fast enough, the clock will still beat you. Candidates who are struggling to complete the exam in time usually struggle with three things specifically: Technical knowledge, Case writing skills, and Typing speed. Let’s look at how this breaks down:

Technical Knowledge

This is your foundational knowledge. Let’s do a gentle but honest reality check: if you open a case and truly have no idea how to respond, or find yourself completely void of what to do, time management isn’t your primary hurdle yet. You cannot write fast if you don’t know the rules. Without strong technicals, you are not going to reach the necessary depth for passing marks.

If you find yourself consistently freezing up or staring blankly at the screen, please don’t panic! It just means your priority needs to pivot back to foundational technical review and rigorous debriefing before you worry about the ticking clock.

Case Writing Skills

Reading the facts is one thing, but translating what the Board actually wants you to do with them—and structuring your thoughts under time pressure—is where time is won or lost. When it comes to speed, this pillar is usually the biggest culprit. Case writing efficiency comes down to a few factors:

Templates: Much of improving speed with case writing comes from knowing how to format specific AOs. Keeping track of how these are commonly answered and templating them eliminates a lot of formatting work upfront. For example, if you spot a control weakness, you should automatically set up a WIR (Weakness, Implication, Recommendation) format. The same applies to RAMP for Audit Planning Memos or SAPPY for special reports.
Triggers: The CFE is full of clues. Referencing specific “trigger words” hidden in the case facts helps you instantly identify the required technical standard so you can start writing, saving precious planning minutes. Check out our GCPA Trigger Library to start matching common case facts to their corresponding technical requirements.
Time Budgeting: A failure to stick to a strict time budget is a massive trap. If your timer for an AO goes off, you must stop writing and move on. This discipline ensures you have sufficient coverage across the entire case, as an imperfect answer can still get you a pass (RC), but an empty answer guarantees a zero. By sticking strictly to your budget during practice and rigorously debriefing afterward, you will learn exactly which parts of your writing are earning you marks and which are simply wasting your time.

Typing Speed We always qualify the significance of typing with this warning: If you don’t know your technicals and case writing frameworks, no amount of typing speed will save you. But we have to be completely candid: if your typing is well below 40 WPM, you will need to speed this up because it could impact your ability to pass the CFE.

For CPA Canada exams, the recommended minimum typing speed is 40 to 45 Words Per Minute (WPM) , though top writers often hit 60-70 WPM. If your skills are solid, typing speed becomes your secret weapon. Fast typing gives you that extra 60-second buffer to put more things down and write an additional pro, con, or audit procedure to lock in that “C”. If you want to build this skill, our GCPA SpeedType™ tool lets you practice with actual CPA Canada exam phrases, building muscle memory for accounting terminology while you type.

3 Actionable Strategies to Speed Up Your Writing

Now that you know exactly where time is lost, here is how you practically save time while writing:

Treat the Exam Like a High-Stakes Cooking Competition (Get something decently on the plate and move on)

Stop thinking of the CFE as a standard university exam. It’s a high-stakes cooking competition like Chopped. The judges (the markers) give you a basket of weird ingredients (the AOs) and a brutally tight ticking clock.

You do not have time to bake a multi-tier wedding cake from scratch. You just need to get an edible, fully assembled dessert in front of the judges before the buzzer sounds.

If you budget 15 minutes to solve an issue, drop your pencil at the 15-minute mark, write your conclusion, and move to the next “dish”. Serving two fully cooked, acceptable plates (getting an “RC” on two AOs) is vastly better than serving one Michelin-star meal (“C”) and leaving the next plate completely empty (“NA”) because you ran out of time in the kitchen.

Stop Copy-Pasting the Handbook If you encounter an FR, Audit, or Tax issue, do not spend valuable minutes copying walls of text from Knotia. You get zero marks for copy-pasting; you get marks for applying the standard to the case facts. Use Knotia smartly: search using quotation marks for exact phrases, extract only the core criteria you need, and move directly to your case analysis.
Know What to Do When You Are Stuck You will eventually get hit with an obscure topic you have never seen before. Every year, the Board of Examiners includes Assessment Opportunities that are completely non-routine to test your ability to handle the unknown. Do not spend 20 minutes hunting through Knotia for the perfect technical answer.

If you can’t find it quickly, give the bare minimum: write a logical statement, apply whatever case facts you have, provide a recommendation, and keep moving. Trying to forcefully figure out an obscure issue will burn valuable time that should be spent tackling the routine AOs that actually guarantee your pass. For a deeper dive into this exact scenario, read our full guide on Navigating Unfamiliar AOs / Tackling Unknown AOs on the CFE.

Final Thoughts

Time management on the CFE isn’t about being perfectly polished; it’s about identifying your actual weaknesses and making ruthlessly efficient decisions under pressure. Accept the ambiguity of the solution guides, trust your templates, spot your triggers, check your typing speed, and get your thoughts on the page. Aim for reasonable, supported, and complete answers across the board. Perfect is the enemy of a pass—you’ve got this!

Looking for CFE support? Review the resources, templates, and CPA coaching programs available at www.gevorgcpa.com to help navigate your path to becoming a Canadian CPA.

CFE Strategy – Finding RMM Factors for Audit Planning Memos

Posted on by Comments Off

If you are writing the CFE and tackling an Assurance role, you already know the Audit Planning Memo (APM) is a staple. A critical component of this memo is assessing the Risk of Material Misstatement (RMM) at the Overall Financial Statement Level (OFSL).

To master the APM, it helps to rely on the GCPA RAMP framework: Risk, Approach, Materiality, and Procedures. This post focuses on that crucial first letter: Risk.

Many candidates struggle not with understanding RMM, but with quickly finding the right case facts under severe time constraints. To score a “Competent” (C), you need to identify the right case facts, explain why they increase or decrease risk, and conclude on the overall risk level.

We have summarized several of the GCPA resources for Assurance competencies specific to Audit Planning Memos and RMM related AOs, and have generated the post below based on this.

Apply a clear formula for RMM

Before we dive into where to look, remember the formula graders are looking for, based on CAS 315 (Identifying and Assessing the Risks of Material Misstatement). RMM is a combination of Inherent Risk (IR) and Control Risk (CR).

To get depth in your response, use the GCPA formula:

State the factors using case facts (What) + Explain the implication (Why does it increase/decrease the risk) = Depth.

Do not just copy a fact from the case. You must explain how that fact impacts the audit. Furthermore, to show a balanced analysis, always actively look for factors that decrease the risk of material misstatement, not just the ones that increase it.

Where to Look in Day 2 Cases

Day 2 cases are massive. You have up to 5 hours, but you can easily get lost in the weeds. In Day 2, the Assurance role is tested deeply, and RMM factors are usually scattered across multiple appendices. When assessing OFSL risks, remember that these are pervasive risks that relate to the financial statements as a whole.

1. The “Background” or “Company Overview” Section

This is usually the first page or two of the case. Graders hide high-level control environment (Control Risk) and bias factors (Inherent Risk) here.

Look for: Ownership changes, management turnover, lack of segregation of duties, or first-time audits.
Example Fact: “The company’s CFO resigned three months ago, and the junior bookkeeper has been handling the financials.”
Implication: There is a weakened control environment and a lack of segregation of duties, increasing the risk of errors or fraud passing through unnoticed. (RMM Increases)

2. The “Strategic Plans” or “Financing” Appendix

Management bias is the most common RMM factor on the CFE. You will almost always find it where money is discussed.

Look for: Bank loan covenants, plans for an Initial Public Offering (IPO), upcoming purchases/sales of the entity, or management bonuses tied to net income.
Example Fact: “The company needs to secure a $2 million expansion loan from the bank next month.”
Implication: Management has a bias to overstate revenues and understate liabilities to make the financial statements look as healthy as possible to secure the loan. (RMM Increases)

3. The “Operations” or “IT” Appendix

Complexity drives risk. If the company is doing something new, the accounting is likely to be messed up.

Look for: Implementation of a new ERP/IT system, market competition driving down prices, or expanding into foreign markets.
Example Fact: “On October 1st, the company transitioned to a new automated inventory tracking system.”
Implication: There is a high risk of data migration errors or system glitches during the changeover, meaning opening balances or year-end figures could be misstated. (RMM Increases)

Spotting Fraud Risk: The INPORT Framework

If you spot fraud risk factors, these automatically impact the OFSL. Use the GCPA INPORT memory aid to easily recall the three components of the Fraud Triangle:

INcentives and Pressures (e.g., personal financial stress, performance-based bonuses).
Portunity (Opportunity) (e.g., poor oversight, lack of segregation of duties).
Rationalization and aTtitude (e.g., a culture that prioritizes growth over compliance).

Where to Look in Day 3 Cases

Day 3 cases are short sprints (70 to 90 minutes). You do not have time to dig through endless appendices. The RMM factors here are usually explicit and front-loaded. You generally only need 2 to 4 well-explained factors to get a “C” on Day 3.

1. The Opening Paragraphs (The “Trigger”)

In Day 3, the prompt telling you to write the memo is usually in the first two paragraphs. The RMM factors are often baked right into this introduction.

Look for: Why the audit is happening now.
Example Fact: “Your firm has just been appointed as the new auditors for XYZ Corp after their previous auditors retired.”
Implication: This is a first-time audit. We do not have cumulative knowledge of the client, and opening and comparative balances may not be reliable since we did not audit the prior year. (RMM Increases)

2. The “Financial Update” Paragraph

Day 3 cases rarely have a dedicated financing appendix; instead, they will drop a single sentence about the company’s financial health.

Look for: Industry downturns, cash flow issues, or going concern indicators.
Example Fact: “Due to a recent supply chain crisis, the company has suffered a 30% drop in sales and is struggling to pay suppliers.”
Implication: The company is facing financial hardship. This creates a going concern risk and a high incentive for management to manipulate the books to hide the distress from stakeholders. (RMM Increases)

Summary Cheat Sheet: Quick RMM Identifiers

Use this table as a quick mental checklist when reading a case to ensure you capture both increasing and decreasing factors for balance:

Factor	Type	Impact on RMM	Implication
New bank loan or covenant	Inherent Risk	Increases	Management has a strong bias to overstate net income and assets to secure funding.
Management bonus tied to profit	Inherent Risk	Increases	Creates a direct financial incentive for management to artificially inflate net income.
New IT or Accounting System	Control Risk	Increases	High risk of data conversion errors or lost information during the transition.
First-time audit	Inherent Risk	Increases	The audit firm lacks cumulative knowledge; heightened risk that opening balances carry undetected misstatements.
Active Internal Audit Function	Control Risk	Decreases	Management and the board are highly aware of control deficiencies and actively monitor them.
Long-time, experienced staff	Control Risk	Decreases	A stable control environment with experienced personnel reduces the likelihood of everyday errors.

Final Tip for CFE Candidates

When writing your RMM section, always remember to conclude. After listing your 3 to 5 balanced factors, explicitly state: “Overall, the risk of material misstatement at the OFSL is assessed as HIGH/MODERATE/LOW.” Failing to conclude is the easiest way to drop from a “C” to an “RC”!

Looking for CFE support? Review the resources, templates, and CPA coaching programs available at www.gevorgcpa.com to help navigate your path to becoming a Canadian CPA.

How to Respond to CPA PERT Reviewer Comments

Posted on by Comments Off

Submitting your Practical Experience Reporting Tool (PERT) reports is a key milestone in obtaining your Canadian CPA designation. After you provide your detailed experience report, it is very common for the CPA reviewer in charge of assessing your submission to have follow-up questions or request revisions.

Getting your report returned with reviewer comments is a standard part of the PERT process. Before outlining how to systematically tackle these revisions, there are a few important realities about the review process that candidates should understand.

The Human Element of PERT Reviewers

When you submit a PERT report, it is evaluated by a human reviewer. Because this process involves human judgment, there is naturally an element of subjectivity.

Two candidates could submit nearly identical experience reports. For one reviewer, the report might clear perfectly without a single question. For another reviewer, that exact same report might receive reviewer comments and revision requests. Because there is no way of perfectly predicting a reviewer’s specific preferences, receiving comments doesn’t necessarily mean you did something wrong. It simply means that your specific reviewer needs a little more context to connect the dots and confidently approve your competencies. We talked about this in detail, specifically for Alberta PERT candidates who have a reputation of facing a more challenging reviewer hurdle.

Managing Expectations: The Reality of Progression

Another common reason you might receive reviewer comments is related to where you are in your CPA journey. CPA reviewers expect to see progression in your experience over time; they will almost never approve a Level 2 technical proficiency right out of the gate.

This is a topic we have talked about in the past on the blog as well. For example, in our article, Is One Example Enough for PERT Enabling Competencies?, we discussed how the core strategy for completing your competencies relies on demonstrating a gradual progression. In your first report, you might claim a Level 0. In your second, a Level 1. It isn’t until your later reports, after providing multiple complex examples over time, that a Level 2 is typically granted.

Similarly, we have highlighted this expectation in our guide on Catching up on CPA PERT Reports. Even if you are submitting multiple catch-up reports at once, you must still show a chronological progression. If you submit your very first 6-month report and request a Level 2, the reviewer will likely ask for revisions or downgrade you to a Level 1. They need to see your duties evolve and your autonomy increase over the full 30 months.

5 Key Steps to Respond to CPA Reviewer Comments

Understanding these expectations helps frame the reviewer’s feedback. Now, let’s look at how to tackle the revisions efficiently through a clear, 5-step process.

Step 1: Note Your Response Deadline

Before you review the comments or begin drafting a response, you must make note of your submission deadline and set yourself as many alarms and reminders as required to ensure you don’t miss this. This is critical. It is not a suggestion. You cannot request an extension. You must reply within the timeline.

Missing this deadline essentially causes you to “surrender” any experience within the report that did not get cleared on the first pass. If you do not respond within the time allotted, you lose your ability to go back and edit or revise those comments to utilize your experience. We have seen students lose the ability to use over 2 years of hard-earned experience simply due to failing to respond within the allotted time limit. Treat this deadline as an absolute priority.

Step 2: Read and Process the Feedback Objectively

When a report is returned for revisions, it is important to process the feedback objectively before making any edits. Read the reviewer’s comments carefully. Reviewers often leave specific notes about what is missing or what requires clarification. Your objective in this step is simply comprehension: understand exactly what the reviewer is saying and what aspect of your role they are trying to clarify.

Step 3: Pinpoint the Targeted Area of Your Report

PERT reports are comprehensive and contain multiple sections. Once you have read the feedback, you need to pinpoint exactly which section the reviewer is targeting. Start by identifying:

Is this a Technical Competency or an Enabling Competency?
Which specific sub-competency is being targeted? (e.g., Financial Reporting vs. Audit and Assurance).
Which specific part of your response is in question? (Are they looking at the Situation, the Action, or the Result?)

By isolating the exact area of your report the reviewer is speaking about, you keep your revisions focused and avoid unnecessarily altering sections of your report that were already approved.

Step 4: Identify the Actionable Change Required

Next, identify what actionable change the reviewer wants you to make. Ask yourself what the core of their request is. Reviewer comments usually fall into a few common categories:

Lack of specific examples: You may have explained a process generally (e.g., “I perform variance analysis”), and the reviewer requires a real-world example of a specific, non-routine variance you analyzed.
Missing the “How” and “Why”: You might have stated what you did, but the reviewer needs to understand how you did it step-by-step, and why it matters to the organization.
Clarifying Autonomy: The reviewer might need you to use “I” instead of “We” to clarify your independent role versus your manager’s or team’s role.
Progression/Complexity: Based on the progression expectations mentioned earlier, they may need you to demonstrate more complexity to justify granting a higher proficiency level.

Translate their comment into a direct instruction. (For example: “The reviewer needs me to add an example of a complex accounting standard I applied.”)

Step 5: Draft a Targeted Revision

With a clear understanding of the targeted area and the required change, you can now draft your revision.

When writing your response, be clear, concise, and direct. Address the reviewer’s comments explicitly. If they asked how you calculated a specific metric, provide the exact methodology. If they asked for the impact of your work, explicitly state: “The impact of this analysis was…”

You rarely need to rewrite your original response entirely. Usually, you only need to add a few specific sentences or a new paragraph to your original draft to bridge the gap. Provide the specific evidence the reviewer requested so they can confidently approve your level.

Pro-Tip: Before resubmitting, read the reviewer’s original comment, and then immediately read your new draft. Ensure your addition directly and thoroughly answers their prompt.

Final Thoughts

Navigating PERT is a detailed process, and receiving reviewer comments is simply a standard step on your path to the CPA designation. The reviewer’s goal is to ensure your experience meets the requirements set by CPA Canada. Guard your deadlines carefully, manage your expectations regarding progression, and follow a systematic approach to your revisions to get your reports cleared efficiently.

Looking for additional support with your PERT reports, aiming for Level 2 competencies, or studying for the CFE? Review the resources, templates, and CPA coaching programs available at www.gevorgcpa.com to help navigate your path to becoming a Canadian CPA.

Tackling Unknown AOs on the CFE

Posted on by Comments Off

How to Tackle Unknown AOs on the CFE

Welcome to the “Unknown AO.”

The Perspective Shift

Why does the BOE do this?

Have a Planned Response

1. Labeling the Unknown: Identification IS Half the Battle

First things first: simply identifying and labeling an AO as “unknown” is half the battle.

2. Bucket the Issue

If you had to bucket it into a category, or describe it to someone, where does it fit?

Is it kind of like an asset? Is it a piece of equipment, is it cash, or an investment?
Is it kind of like a liability? Are you going to owe someone money?
Is it kind of like an expense? Has someone done work for you, or will you owe someone because of a service?
Is it kind of like equity? Have you issued shares, or granted an ownership stake?

3. Apply a Technical Framework

If your search comes up empty and you are completely lost in the Handbook, stop, and default to the three key components of any accounting standard:

Recognition: When does it go on the books?
Measurement: How much is it worth?
Disclosure: What do we tell the users of the financial statements?

4. Bare minimum: Case facts + so what + recommendation

When all else fails, write whatever reasonable accounting logic comes to mind, but you MUST apply case facts from the appendices, and you ALWAYS provide a recommendation.

Get support at Gevorg CPA

You don’t have to face the CFE curveballs alone, register for a Gevorg CPA CFE Prep program today.

Don’t leave your exam success to chance. Join us today.