The best answer is neither passive nor reckless
PwC's 2027 Audit Video Interview asks candidates to challenge an established analytics approach while preserving audit quality and the working relationship. People who meet this scenario cold often choose one extreme: obey without question or push the new tool without enough evidence.
The stronger position is disciplined challenge. You make the alternative testable, agree the decision criteria, and remain open to evidence that your own idea needs work.
The real question
Here is the full scenario shown to candidates:
Challenge is crucial to audit quality. It is important for us to increase our understanding of the organisations we audit for, so that we know we're challenging in the right areas and in a meaningful way. What would you do in the following scenario:
You are completing some data analytics for an audit with one of your colleagues. They share with you the approach that they typically take which they would like you to follow. However, you know a different approach using one of the new technologies PwC has invested in. What would you do in this situation?
In your response please share:
• What would you say to your colleague?
• How would you reach an agreement?
• How would you respond if your colleague provided you with constructive feedback?
How you lose points
- Calling the existing method outdated. That attacks the colleague before you have established whether the new approach is actually better.
- Using innovation as the only argument. A newer technology is not automatically more reliable, proportionate, or appropriate for the audit.
- Escalating too early. Skipping a direct evidence based discussion suggests weak judgment and collaboration.
- Agreeing without a test. A compromise is not useful if neither person defines what success, risk, and review will look like.
- Treating feedback as resistance. Constructive criticism should improve the proposal, not trigger a defence of personal ownership.
Use a controlled challenge process
A strong answer protects quality first, then earns support for the alternative through a small and reviewable comparison.
- Acknowledge the established approach. Ask why it is normally used and what risks or constraints it already controls.
- Present the alternative as a hypothesis. Explain the expected benefit and the evidence needed before anyone relies on it.
- Propose a bounded test. Run both methods on a limited sample and compare completeness, accuracy, exceptions, time, and reviewability.
- Agree the decision rule. Decide together what result would justify adopting, modifying, or rejecting the new method.
- Use feedback to tighten the work. Restate the concern, test it against evidence, and update the proposal where it is valid.
A hypothetical response could propose a parallel test on a small data subset before changing the audit approach. That shows initiative without asking the team to accept unproven output.
See the full PwC Audit question set
This scenario is one part of the PwC Audit assessment. Our store has the complete PwC Audit interview question set for candidates who want to practise the other judgments the process may test.