FREE TEMPLATE

Consulting Findings Report Template

Five documents and four sheets built so every finding names the standard it is measured against and every recommendation names the person who says yes.

Edit with AI Download (.docx + .csv)

Free download · No account needed

What you get

Pack of 9 files: 5 documents, 4 spreadsheets

Consulting Findings Report Template

What Makes a FindingDocument
Decision Request FormatDocument
Finding RegisterSpreadsheet
Finding to Evidence MapSpreadsheet
Recommendation RegisterSpreadsheet
Decision LogSpreadsheet
Findings ReportDocument
Executive SummaryDocument
Readout Running OrderDocument

Consulting Findings Report Template

Finding Register · F-02 · governance review, 2,400 home housing association

One row, and the first field is the whole argument

Field	What the register holds
Statement	Repairs are recorded as complete before the tenant confirms the work
Criteria	The repairs policy defines completion as the tenant confirming the work is done Repairs policy section 4.2
Condition	31 of 60 sampled jobs were closed on the operative's return to the depot, with the tenant confirmation field empty
Cause	The mobile app marks a job complete when the operative taps done, and the confirmation field is optional
Effect	Reported first-time-fix performance is overstated by an unknown margin, and the 14 percent recall rate is the only visible symptom
Perspective	Systemic · 31 of 60 · sampled from 2,410
Repeat of	F-04 in the 2024 review
Officials' view	Head of repairs agrees the field is optional and states the policy definition was never implemented in the app

Field

What the register holds

Statement

Repairs are recorded as complete before the tenant confirms the work

Criteria

The repairs policy defines completion as the tenant confirming the work is done
Repairs policy section 4.2

Condition

31 of 60 sampled jobs were closed on the operative's return to the depot, with the tenant confirmation field empty

Cause

The mobile app marks a job complete when the operative taps done, and the confirmation field is optional

Effect

Reported first-time-fix performance is overstated by an unknown margin, and the 14 percent recall rate is the only visible symptom

Perspective

Systemic · 31 of 60 · sampled from 2,410

Repeat of

F-04 in the 2024 review

Officials' view

Head of repairs agrees the field is optional and states the policy definition was never implemented in the app

Drop the criteria row and this becomes an opinion. Repairs reporting is inconsistent has nothing in it to agree with, disagree with or act on. A named policy section and a counted sample has one question left in it, and the question is what they intend to do.

Repeat of F-04 is the sentence that changes the room. A new finding invites a discussion about whether it matters. The same finding marked as a repeat of a 2024 one, with the reference, invites a discussion about why nothing happened, and that discussion belongs to the client.

31 of 60 sampled from 2,410. The register never says several, and it never extrapolates a convenience sample to the population.

Search this and you get a table of contents. Title page, executive summary, background, methodology, findings, recommendations, appendices. Every result on page one specifies the order of the sections and not one of them specifies what has to be inside a finding. So the section gets filled with sentences like repairs reporting is inconsistent, which is an observation with a judgement attached, and the client thanks you for a thorough piece of work and decides nothing. The layout was never the problem.

A finding is a structure. 2 CFR 200.516(b) sets out what a federal audit finding has to contain, and it is the most widely applied published specification of one. Five elements: criteria, condition, cause, effect, and whether the case is isolated or systemic with the count stated against the number examined. Criteria is the element consulting drops. The policy defines completion as the tenant confirming the work. Thirty-one of sixty sampled jobs closed at the depot with that field empty.

The decision side follows 2 CFR 200.521, which requires a management decision on each finding stating whether it is sustained, the reasons, and the expected action, carrying the finding's own reference number. So every recommendation traces to a cause and arrives as a question with a yes and a no, a named role and a date. Build it from what an interview programme and a scored assessment produced, or take the files blank.

The row with no criteria, and the refusal that counts as a result

Every recommendation quotes the cause it addresses. Every decision carries the finding reference, so in a year the decision can still be read back against what it was made about.

Consulting Findings Report Template

Finding RegisterEvidence MapRecommendationsDecision Log

Finding Register

Extract for a fictional housing association, Brackenfield. Seven rows, one of which is not a finding.

Ref	Criteria and its source	Condition	Perspective	Sev
F-01	Management agreement clause 8.3 requires a monthly board performance report	Reports exist January to March, nothing April to September, no board minute records the gap	6 of 6 months	High
F-02	Repairs policy section 4.2 defines completion as tenant confirmation	31 of 60 sampled jobs closed at the depot with the confirmation field empty	31 of 60	High
F-03	Standing orders paragraph 12 requires every variation signed by both parties before work proceeds	Two variations agreed by email, neither executed, work proceeded and was invoiced	2 of 4	Medium
F-04	Performance framework appendix B requires a documented calculation per published indicator	Three staff produced three different figures for the same quarter, published figure matches none	3 of 3	High
F-06	No criteria identified · searched six documents	The rota names a duty manager nightly. Where that person is unavailable, practice varies	Not counted	Observation
F-07	Stores procedure table 3 sets a minimum holding for 22 emergency parts	4 of 12 spot checks found a part below minimum, twice the same part	4 of 12	Low

Ref

Criteria and its source

Condition

Perspective

Sev

F-01

Management agreement clause 8.3 requires a monthly board performance report

Reports exist January to March, nothing April to September, no board minute records the gap

6 of 6 months

High

F-02

Repairs policy section 4.2 defines completion as tenant confirmation

31 of 60 sampled jobs closed at the depot with the confirmation field empty

31 of 60

High

F-03

Standing orders paragraph 12 requires every variation signed by both parties before work proceeds

Two variations agreed by email, neither executed, work proceeded and was invoiced

2 of 4

Medium

F-04

Performance framework appendix B requires a documented calculation per published indicator

Three staff produced three different figures for the same quarter, published figure matches none

3 of 3

High

F-06

No criteria identified · searched six documents

The rota names a duty manager nightly. Where that person is unavailable, practice varies

Not counted

Observation

F-07

Stores procedure table 3 sets a minimum holding for 22 emergency parts

4 of 12 spot checks found a part below minimum, twice the same part

4 of 12

Low

F-06 is the row that makes the other six believed. Three people described three different informal cover arrangements, which is genuinely worth telling the client. Nothing in the rota procedure, the job descriptions or the policy requires cover, so it is an observation and the report says so in one line. Inventing the criteria from professional judgement is what produces the readout where somebody asks who says we have to do that.

Severity is set against the effect, not the instance count. F-03 is two contracts of four and it is medium because the money is recoverable. F-04 is three reproductions of three and it is high because the figure is published externally.

Views of the responsible officials are gathered before the report is issued and written into the row, including the two rows where the officer disagrees.

Evidence Map

Finding to Evidence Map

One row per element per finding. A partly supported element is a filled row, not a blank one.

Ref	Element	Kind	What it is	Holds?
M-06	F-02 condition	Record	Job level export, 60 jobs, closure timestamp and confirmation field	Yes
M-07	F-02 cause	Observation	Watched an operative close a job with the confirmation field untouched	Yes
M-03	F-01 cause	Statement	Two directors independently describe the post being backfilled without the task	Yes
M-04	F-01 effect	Analysis	The two service decisions taken in the window and what each cites	Partly
M-12	F-04 cause	Statement	Performance lead attributes the lost definition to the 2022 migration	Partly
M-15	F-06 criteria	None	Searched the rota procedure, the job descriptions and the policy	No

Ref

Element

Kind

What it is

Holds?

M-06

F-02 condition

Record

Job level export, 60 jobs, closure timestamp and confirmation field

Yes

M-07

F-02 cause

Observation

Watched an operative close a job with the confirmation field untouched

Yes

M-03

F-01 cause

Statement

Two directors independently describe the post being backfilled without the task

Yes

M-04

F-01 effect

Analysis

The two service decisions taken in the window and what each cites

Partly

M-12

F-04 cause

Statement

Performance lead attributes the lost definition to the 2022 migration

Partly

M-15

F-06 criteria

None

Searched the rota procedure, the job descriptions and the policy

M-07 is the strongest row on the page. The cause is a configuration choice and an observation proves it rather than describing it. Compare M-12, where a single interested witness offers the origin of a lost definition: the finding records it as the origin offered, not as established cause, and the recommendation says what would establish it.

M-04 is a partly that matters. The minutes show no performance basis for either decision. Whether the decisions would have differed is not established, so the finding does not claim it. Overclaiming an effect is how a correct finding gets thrown out on the one sentence that overreached.

M-03 is a statement carrying a cause, which is allowed here because two accounts agree independently and neither witness has an interest in the version given.

Recommendations

Recommendation Register

Every row quotes the cause it addresses. A recommendation aimed at a condition is a training reminder.

Ref	Finding	Recommendation	Cause it addresses	Decides	By
R-02	F-02	Make the tenant confirmation field mandatory before a job can close	The field is optional in the configuration	Exec dir housing	14 Nov
R-03	F-02	Restate first-time-fix for the year once confirmed closures are the basis	The figure rests on operative closures, not confirmations	Chief executive	21 Nov
R-04	F-03	Name one post accountable for contract administration	No single owner after the procurement post merged into finance	Finance director	14 Nov
R-06	F-04	Publish one documented calculation per indicator and reconcile the three figures	The definition was lost with an inaccessible spreadsheet	Exec dir housing	21 Nov
R-10	F-07	Set an automatic reorder point for the 22 minimum-hold parts	Reorder is manual and uncovered during leave	Dir operations	14 Nov

Ref

Finding

Recommendation

Cause it addresses

Decides

R-02

F-02

Make the tenant confirmation field mandatory before a job can close

The field is optional in the configuration

Exec dir housing

14 Nov

R-03

F-02

Restate first-time-fix for the year once confirmed closures are the basis

The figure rests on operative closures, not confirmations

Chief executive

21 Nov

R-04

F-03

Name one post accountable for contract administration

No single owner after the procurement post merged into finance

Finance director

14 Nov

R-06

F-04

Publish one documented calculation per indicator and reconcile the three figures

The definition was lost with an inaccessible spreadsheet

Exec dir housing

21 Nov

R-10

F-07

Set an automatic reorder point for the 22 minimum-hold parts

Reorder is manual and uncovered during leave

Dir operations

14 Nov

R-02 and R-03 are the same finding and two different jobs. One closes the gap going forward, one deals with the number already reported. Practitioners write the first and skip the second, and the second is the one the regulator asks about.

Notice what is not in the R-02 row. Retrain the operatives on closure procedure. The condition is that jobs close early; the cause is an optional field. A recommendation aimed at the condition expires the week the last trained operative leaves.

Two findings sharing a cause share one recommendation, with both references on it. Ten recommendations across four decision makers is the running order for the readout, grouped by person and cheapest first.

Decision Log

Five outcomes, and silence is not one of them.

Ref	Rec	Outcome	Sustained	Reason recorded
D-02	R-02	Approved	Yes	Accepted, including the consequence that reported first-time-fix will fall
D-03	R-03	Deferred	Yes	Wants the restated figure in hand before deciding who receives it
D-05	R-05	Not approved	Yes	Counsel judged unnecessary: both counterparties confirmed the variations in writing and neither is in dispute
D-06	R-07	Superseded	Yes	Overtaken by R-06 now that the reconciliation is funded
D-08	R-06	Awaiting	Yes	Asked in the readout and not answered. Two working days past the agreed date
D-09	R-08	Awaiting	Disputed	Effect disputed by the customer services manager, who has asked for the regulator return arithmetic first

Ref

Rec

Outcome

Sustained

Reason recorded

D-02

R-02

Approved

Yes

Accepted, including the consequence that reported first-time-fix will fall

D-03

R-03

Deferred

Yes

Wants the restated figure in hand before deciding who receives it

D-05

R-05

Not approved

Yes

Counsel judged unnecessary: both counterparties confirmed the variations in writing and neither is in dispute

D-06

R-07

Superseded

Yes

Overtaken by R-06 now that the reconciliation is funded

D-08

R-06

Awaiting

Yes

Asked in the readout and not answered. Two working days past the agreed date

D-09

R-08

Awaiting

Disputed

Effect disputed by the customer services manager, who has asked for the regulator return arithmetic first

D-05 is a good outcome. The finding is sustained and the recommendation refused, because the chief executive knows something the review did not: both counterparties confirmed the variations in writing and neither is in dispute. The exposure is accepted, in writing, by the person entitled to accept it. Argue with that refusal once and every later decision maker learns that no costs them a debate, so they start saying nothing instead.

Disputed is a state of the finding, not of the decision. The customer services manager disputes the effect on D-09. That dispute lives in the finding's own views field, the arithmetic went back the same day, and the decision request still gets asked.

Days past the agreed date is the only number in this pack that is supposed to make somebody uncomfortable, and it belongs in the status report rather than in a footnote.

Edit with AI

What's in the pack

Finding Register

Criteria with its source clause, condition, cause, effect, perspective as instances over cases examined, prior-review reference, and the accountable officer's own recorded view.

Finding to Evidence Map

One row per element per finding, four evidence kinds in strength order, and a partly supported element written out rather than left blank.

Recommendation Register

Each row quotes the cause it addresses, carries the owner role and effort, and names the decision it needs from whom by when. Where the decision needs money, the value model that prices it against their own account codes is the sheet finance asks for.

Decision Log

Approved, not approved with the finding sustained, deferred, superseded or awaiting, with the reason and what changes recorded against the finding reference. Where several interdependent recommendations need a dedicated session, the decision workshop pack checks each one's prerequisite and stakeholder alignment first.

What Makes a Finding

The five elements, where criteria legitimately come from, and the rule that demotes a finding with no standard behind it to an observation.

Decision Request Format

Seven lines per decision, including what stays the same on a no and the consequence the decision maker has not thought of.

Findings Report and Executive Summary

Seven sections with observations separated from findings in one line, and a one page summary that carries the decisions rather than the methodology.

Readout Running Order

Ninety minutes ordered for decisions instead of for completeness, with the decisions grouped by person and asked out loud in the room.

How to use it

1
Open in River, or take it blank
Open the pack in River and send the evidence with the client's own contract and policies, or download the Word documents and CSV sheets and fill them yourself.
2
Find the criteria first
Every finding gets a written requirement behind it, cited to the clause, section or paragraph. Anything with none becomes an observation and the report says which is which.
3
Trace each element to evidence
One map row per element. A cause resting on one interested witness is recorded as the origin offered, and the effect never claims more than the evidence carries.
4
Ask the decisions in the room
Grouped by the person who answers, cheapest first, with the date written down out loud. Then read the log back and send it the same day.

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

Yes. The zip is Word documents and CSV sheets, no account and no card. Edit with AI is the optional half: the agent hunts the criteria inside the client's own contract and policies, then builds the registers from your evidence. The rest sit in the template library.

What format are the downloaded files?

Word (.docx) for the five documents and CSV (.csv) for the four sheets, zipped together. Excel, Numbers and Google Sheets open the finding register, the evidence map, the recommendations and the decision log straight off the download.

Why does a consulting report need audit finding structure?

Because the elements are the same and one profession wrote them down. A federal single audit finding must carry criteria, condition, cause, effect and perspective. Consulting produces the same object, calls it a finding, and routinely ships it without the first element.

What if there is no policy behind something I found?

It becomes an observation, with the criteria field reading none identified and the search you ran recorded. It still goes to the client, in its own section. Inventing the standard from professional judgement is what loses you the room when somebody asks who requires that.

The client disputes one of the findings. Do I soften it?

No. Their view goes into the finding, verbatim where it is short, and the arithmetic stands. A disagreement written into the document is a stated disagreement rather than an ambush in the readout, and the decision request still gets asked. Where the pushback runs across several review rounds, the client feedback and iteration pack logs why each round's request was accepted or declined.

Where do the findings come from?

Whatever the engagement produced: analysis, interview synthesis, system exports, working papers. The criteria come from the client's contract and policies, which is why the intake pack asks for those documents on day one rather than in week three.

How is this different from a maturity assessment?

An assessment grades the organisation against a scale and hands back a profile. This states specific gaps against specific written standards and turns each one into a decision with a name on it. Consultants run both, in that order, and the deliverables are not interchangeable.

Sources

Written by

Chandler Supple

Co-founder & CEO, River

Chandler has spent the last six years working in AI, building tools for millions of users and Fortune 100 companies. In 2025, he co-founded River to build a new kind of operating system for AI agents.

LinkedIn GitHub X

Reviewed by

Brian Joseff, Co-founder, River

LinkedIn X

Related workspaces

Consulting assessment with real anchors

Score the organisation first, then bring the blocking anchors here.

Stakeholder interview guides that count

Where the interview evidence behind a finding comes from.

The consultant client intake checklist

The contract and policies that criteria are actually cited from.

More free templates

Benefit Realization Tracking Template

Free benefit realization tracking template: Benefit Register, Measurement Method, Attribution Note. Edit with AI, or download as Word and CSV.

Client Feedback Response Log Template

Free client feedback response log template in Word and CSV: classifies every review comment accepted, discussed or declined, with a reason for each.

Consulting Engagement Handover Template

Free consulting handover template: Handover Document, Model Guide, Artefact Register, Knowledge Transfer Tracker. Edit with AI, or download as Word and CSV.

Consulting Implementation Roadmap Template

Free consulting implementation roadmap template in Word and CSV: an initiative register, a capacity check in real days per owner, and a blackout calendar.

Turn evidence into decisions

Take the Word documents and CSV sheets blank, or send River your draft findings with the client's contract and get back the criteria behind each one.

Edit with AI

Consulting Findings Report Template

One row, and the first field is the whole argument

The row with no criteria, and the refusal that counts as a result

Finding Register

Finding to Evidence Map

Recommendation Register

Decision Log

What's in the pack

Finding Register

Finding to Evidence Map

Recommendation Register

Decision Log

What Makes a Finding

Decision Request Format

Findings Report and Executive Summary

Readout Running Order

How to use it

Open in River, or take it blank

Find the criteria first

Trace each element to evidence

Ask the decisions in the room

Frequently asked questions

Is this template free?

What format are the downloaded files?

Why does a consulting report need audit finding structure?

What if there is no policy behind something I found?

The client disputes one of the findings. Do I soften it?

Where do the findings come from?

How is this different from a maturity assessment?

Sources

Chandler Supple

Related workspaces

More free templates

Turn evidence into decisions