Headings
Back to Home

Headings

Headings

Headings help readers by dividing the text into logical sections, and signposting the content of the paragraphs that follow. We commonly use evaluative headings in the Observations section or its equivalent in our reports.
Compliance audit Financial audit Performance audit Review Opinion
Reporting
Ref: 18.310
For annual report, these instructions complement the annual report instructions.

Instructions

Headings are an important part of our audit and review reports and should:
  • Help readers by dividing the text into logical sections. Long passages of unbroken text are very off-putting for readers; as a rule try to avoid more than 6-7 paragraphs without a sub-heading.,
  • Signpost the content of the paragraphs that follow.
  • Be consistent – all headings at the same level should follow a similar format (either evaluative or neutral/descriptive) and the same syntax (ie, full or partial sentences); and
  • Not be overused – using too many headings can overly fragment the text and prevent smooth reading. Do not err too far in the other direction by adding a sub-heading for each paragraph or two.

Levels of headings

Do not confuse readers by having too many levels of headings. While four levels of headings are possible, the reader may get lost within them. As such, it is good practice to use three levels only:
  • First level - to head each section. For the annual report, the first-level headings are set in the annual report instructions. Special reports and review reports follow a standard layout;
  • Second level - to head logical groupings within sections. Note that special and review reports should not have second level headings in the Executive summary, and depending on their length, they may not be necessary for the (Audit) scope and approach, Conclusions and recommendations or Concluding remarks sections. For the Observations in special reports, second level headings would normally separate the text into sections reflecting the audit questions;
  • Third level - to take the reader through the findings or its equivalent in the review in a logical and understandable way. In special reports, this helps to flag up how findings relate to audit questions and lead to the conclusions.

Heading types

Headings can take three principal forms:
  • Neutral – to label the subject of the section to which they refer. Example: 'Introduction', 'Audit scope and approach';
  • Descriptive – to provide more information about the subject matter, without presenting an audit judgement. Descriptive headings are used at second level in the Introduction sections, for example: 'The Commission carried out a risk analysis in 2016', 'Role of the European Commission and of the member states'; and
  • Evaluative – to reflect our audit judgement on the subject matter clearly and unambiguously, notably at the second and third levels in the Observations section. Example: 'The Commission's risk analysis failed to take account of changing circumstances in the area', 'Objectives of Risk Management Plans in the area are generally not quantified or time-bound'.

Evaluative headings

While evaluative headings are not mandatory, it has become common practice to use them in the Observations sections of our audit reports. in contrast, review reports do not use evaluative headings and only use descriptive headings. As well as improving clarity in the body of the report, a good set of evaluative headings helps the busy reader gain a good overview of our audit findings through the table of contents. The main messages established through the drawing conclusions process can provide a good basis for the structure and evaluative headings of the Observations section. As a guide, evaluative headings should be:
  • Accurate and balanced – correctly reflect, without overstatement, the message(s) in the text that follows, including positive aspects where identified;
  • Succinct – ideally not longer than one and a half lines;
  • Specific – relate only to the message(s) in the text which follow;
Evaluative headings in the Observations section should not look like recommendations. In general, evaluative headings read better and are clearer for the reader if we avoid:
  • the use of colons to divide two parts of a heading, eg, 'Quality at ECA: great progress'; and
  • continuous headings, eg (1) 'Although the support was generally well-managed…' (2) '…the Commission could not demonstrate the results achieved…' (3) '…due to inadequate indicators at member state level'.
Evaluative headings often become the focus of attention during the adversarial procedure, with the auditee being particularly attentive to the extent to which headings fairly reflect the text to which they pertain. The auditees should not reply to headings. However, they sometimes feel compelled to propose a reply.
Last Modified: 14/03/2022 16:28   Tags: