Skip to main content
Regulatory Council
Promotional banner ad for the Penetration Testing Report Kit
Category: Internal Controls & Audit

Walkthrough

Also known as: Walk-through, Walk through
Simply put

In a compliance or audit context, a walkthrough is a step-by-step review in which a practitioner traces a single transaction or activity through a process from beginning to end to understand how it actually works. It typically helps confirm whether documented procedures and controls are performed as described. The evidence available here does not provide a GRC-specific definition, so the specifics of audit walkthroughs should be verified against professional auditing standards and guidance.

Formal definition

The term 'walkthrough' generally refers to going through an activity or process step by step, and it appears in usage ranging from software user guidance to perfunctory rehearsal of a familiar activity. In audit and internal control practice, a walkthrough is commonly a procedure in which the practitioner follows a transaction through the relevant process to evaluate the design and implementation of controls; however, the evidence packet provided does not contain sources that define this GRC-specific meaning. Practitioners should note that the precise scope, methodology, and documentation expectations for audit walkthroughs are set out in applicable professional standards and firm methodologies, which fall outside the material available here and should be confirmed against those primary sources. Orthographic conventions vary, with 'walkthrough,' 'walk-through,' and 'walk through' all in use depending on context.

Why it matters

In audit and internal control practice, a walkthrough is often one of the first hands-on procedures a practitioner uses to confirm that a process operates the way it is documented. By tracing a single transaction from initiation to completion, a reviewer can see the difference between how a control is described on paper and how it is actually performed. This matters because documented procedures and real-world execution frequently diverge, and identifying that gap early can shape the scope and direction of subsequent testing.

The term itself carries meanings that extend well beyond GRC. In everyday and dictionary usage, to 'walk through' can mean to go through a familiar activity perfunctorily, such as an early rehearsal, and in software contexts a walkthrough is a step-by-step guide that leads a user through completing a process. Compliance and audit professionals should be aware of this range of meanings so that expectations are clearly set when the word appears in mixed contexts, since a 'walkthrough' in a training or software tool sense is not the same as a control walkthrough in an audit.

It is important to note that the evidence available here does not include sources defining the GRC-specific meaning of a walkthrough. The precise scope, methodology, and documentation expectations for audit walkthroughs are established in applicable professional auditing standards and firm methodologies, which fall outside the material reviewed here. Practitioners should confirm the specifics against those primary sources rather than relying on a general definition.

Who it's relevant to

Internal Auditors
Internal auditors often use walkthroughs early in an engagement to confirm their understanding of a process and to assess whether documented controls are performed as described. This can inform the scope and focus of further testing. The specific expectations for how walkthroughs are conducted and documented should be confirmed against applicable auditing standards and firm methodology.
Compliance Officers
Compliance officers may draw on walkthrough-style reviews to verify that written policies and procedures reflect how activities are actually carried out. Tracing a transaction through a process can surface divergence between documented controls and real-world practice, though the formal methodology should be aligned with relevant professional standards.
External and Financial Statement Auditors
In practice, walkthroughs are commonly associated with evaluating the design and implementation of controls over transactions. External auditors should rely on the specific requirements set out in the professional standards governing their work, since the evidence here does not define those requirements.
Process and Control Owners
Managers who own a process or control may participate in walkthroughs by explaining and demonstrating how each step operates. This helps reviewers understand actual practice and identify where documentation and execution differ.

Inside Walkthrough

Transaction Tracing
The core activity of following a single transaction or event from initiation through processing to its recording in the accounts or its final disposition, observing how each step is handled in practice.
Process Understanding
Confirmation of how a process actually operates as opposed to how it is documented, including the flow of information, the sequence of activities, and the points at which controls are applied.
Control Identification
Recognition of the control activities embedded within the process, distinguishing measures intended to modify risk from ordinary processing steps, and noting where key controls sit within the flow.
Inquiry and Observation
Discussion with the personnel who perform the process and direct observation of the activity, typically combined with inspection of supporting documents or system evidence for the item being traced.
Design Assessment
An evaluation of whether a control, as designed and implemented, would be capable of addressing the risk it is intended to modify; a walkthrough generally supports this design conclusion rather than establishing operating effectiveness over a period.
Documentation of Results
A record of the items selected, the steps followed, the personnel involved, and observations noted, often supporting or updating process narratives and flowcharts.

Common questions

Answers to the questions practitioners most commonly ask about Walkthrough.

Is a walkthrough the same as a test of controls?
No, though the two are related and sometimes confused. A walkthrough typically traces one or a few transactions through a process from initiation to recording to confirm that the auditor's or reviewer's understanding of the control design is accurate and that the control has been placed in operation. It is primarily a means of understanding and confirming design and implementation. Testing of operating effectiveness, by contrast, generally involves examining a sample of instances over a period to assess whether a control operated consistently as intended. A walkthrough may provide some limited evidence relevant to operating effectiveness, but it is not usually sufficient on its own to conclude that a control operated effectively throughout the period. Practices vary by framework and engagement scope.
Does a successful walkthrough confirm that a control is effective?
Not in itself. A walkthrough that traces a transaction successfully tends to support a conclusion that the control was designed appropriately and was in place at a point in time. It does not demonstrate that the control operated effectively across all relevant transactions or throughout the reporting period, because it typically involves a very small number of items. Concluding on operating effectiveness generally requires additional testing. Treating a single walkthrough as proof of effectiveness can overstate the assurance obtained, and the distinction between design confirmation and effectiveness testing should be kept explicit in workpapers and conclusions.
How many transactions should a walkthrough cover?
There is no universal number, and the appropriate coverage depends on the objective, the complexity of the process, and the applicable framework or engagement standards. Walkthroughs often trace a small number of transactions, sometimes as few as one, because the purpose is to confirm understanding of design and implementation rather than to gather statistically representative evidence. Where a process has multiple significant variations or transaction types, reviewers may choose to walk through an example of each to confirm that the relevant control paths are understood. Judgment and documented rationale are typically expected rather than a fixed count.
What should be documented when performing a walkthrough?
Documentation commonly includes the process or transaction cycle in scope, the specific transaction or item traced (with identifying references), the sequence of steps observed, the individuals involved and inquiries made, the documents and system evidence inspected at each point, and the controls encountered along the path. Reviewers often record any exceptions, gaps between the documented process and the observed practice, and conclusions about whether control design and implementation were confirmed. Clear documentation supports the reliability of the conclusion and allows the work to be reviewed. Specific documentation requirements vary by framework, regulator, and internal methodology, so these should be verified against the applicable standards.
Who should perform a walkthrough and who should be involved?
Walkthroughs are typically performed by internal auditors, external auditors, compliance or control reviewers, or process owners conducting self-assessments, depending on the context. To confirm understanding accurately, the reviewer generally engages the personnel who actually perform the steps rather than relying solely on a process narrative or a single point of contact, since documented procedures and day-to-day practice can diverge. Where objectivity matters, such as in assurance activities, the reviewer's independence from the process being examined is often an important consideration. Roles and independence expectations vary by the nature of the engagement.
When in a review cycle is a walkthrough typically performed?
Walkthroughs are often conducted early in a review or audit cycle, during the planning or understanding phase, so that the reviewer can confirm how a process and its controls actually function before designing further testing. Performing a walkthrough at this stage can help identify design gaps, changes since prior periods, or discrepancies between documentation and practice that inform the scope and approach of subsequent work. Some reviewers repeat or update walkthroughs when significant process, system, or personnel changes occur during the period. Timing conventions depend on the methodology and the objectives of the engagement.

Common misconceptions

A walkthrough tests whether a control operated effectively throughout the period.
A walkthrough typically involves tracing a small number of items and is generally used to confirm understanding and evaluate design and implementation at a point in time. It does not, on its own, provide evidence of operating effectiveness across a period, which usually requires separate testing over a sample.
Completing a walkthrough confirms the process has no control deficiencies.
A walkthrough can help identify gaps in control design and points where controls are missing, but it does not eliminate risk or guarantee that deficiencies are absent. Its limited scope means it may not surface issues that only appear across many transactions or under varying conditions.
A walkthrough is the same as reviewing the process documentation.
Reviewing narratives or flowcharts reflects how a process is intended to work, whereas a walkthrough follows an actual item through the process to confirm how it operates in practice. The two often diverge, and the walkthrough is what surfaces that difference.

Best practices

Trace items from their initiation all the way through to final recording or disposition, rather than examining isolated steps, so the full flow and all applied controls are observed.
Corroborate inquiry with observation and inspection of the underlying documents or system evidence, rather than relying solely on how personnel describe the process.
Distinguish clearly between what the walkthrough supports regarding control design and implementation and what would require separate testing to conclude on operating effectiveness over a period.
Identify and note the key controls within the process and confirm where in the flow each is applied, separating genuine control activities from ordinary processing steps.
Update process narratives and flowcharts to reflect what was actually observed, capturing any divergence between documented and actual practice.
Document the items selected, personnel involved, steps performed, and observations, and flag any indications of missing or poorly designed controls for follow-up.
a promotional banner asking how ready are you for PCI DSS 4.0? With a call-to-action to get the checklist now.