Model Reviewer Checklist
Executive Summary
Key Takeaways
- ✓ This checklist is role-neutral, written for whoever is acting as the independent second reviewer of a model, distinct from audience-specific checklists such as the lender review checklist.
- ✓ It structures the peer-review stage of the Model Review and QA Workflow, applied after the model's own builder has completed a self-check using the Financial Modelling Best-Practice Checklist.
- ✓ A reviewer using this checklist should assess the model from its stated purpose and outputs, not from familiarity with how it was built, since that independence is the entire value peer review adds.
- ✓ Completing this checklist is an internal QA step, not a substitute for independent external audit where one is required for a material decision.
Objective¶
This checklist structures the independent peer-review stage described in Model Review and QA Workflow: a second, independent reviewer's systematic check of a model after its own builder has completed a self-check. It is deliberately role-neutral and standard-agnostic — written for whoever is acting as the reviewer, not for a named external audience such as a lender or an investment committee, each of which has its own dedicated, audience-specific checklist elsewhere in this section.
A reviewer using this checklist should work from the model's stated purpose and its outputs, not from any assumed familiarity with how the model was built — that independence of perspective is the specific value peer review adds beyond the builder's own self-check.
Applicability¶
Applicable to the peer-review stage of any Excel-based financial model's internal QA process, regardless of the model's eventual external audience or whether it will be submitted for independent audit at all. Where a model has a defined external audience — a lender, an investment committee, a board — the relevant audience-specific checklist should be applied in addition to this one, not instead of it.
Checklist¶
| # | Check Item | Why It Matters | Evidence to Collect |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The model's stated purpose and key outputs are clearly identified before review begins | A reviewer who does not know what the model is meant to answer cannot assess whether it answers it | Statement of model purpose and key outputs, confirmed with the builder or documentation |
| 2 | Key outputs are traced back to their source inputs, independently of the builder's own trace | Independent tracing is what catches an error the builder's own self-check missed, since the builder already believes the trace is correct | Independent trace notes for each key output |
| 3 | Formula consistency is spot-checked in at least a sample of calculation rows the builder's self-check covered | A second, independent check on rows already self-checked catches errors invisible to the original builder | Spot-check results and cells reviewed |
| 4 | Assumptions are checked against the model's own documentation, not accepted on the reviewer's general expectation | The reviewer's role is to confirm the model matches its stated assumptions, not to substitute their own judgement on what the assumptions should be | Assumption-to-documentation comparison notes |
| 5 | Scenario or sensitivity toggles are tested to confirm they reach every downstream calculation | A toggle that fails to propagate produces outputs that silently ignore the selected scenario, a common and easily missed error | Toggle trace test results across scenarios |
| 6 | Any findings from the reviewer's own check are logged with location and a suggested resolution | An undocumented finding cannot be confirmed as resolved later, and is easy to lose track of before sign-off | Findings log with cell location, description, and resolution status |
| 7 | The reviewer confirms independence — no prior involvement in building the reviewed sections | Independence is what distinguishes peer review from a second self-check; a reviewer who helped build the model cannot provide it for those sections | Reviewer independence statement |
| 8 | Sign-off is recorded with the reviewer's name and the date, referencing this checklist | Creates the documented record that peer review actually occurred, distinct from an informal verbal confirmation | Signed and dated review record |
Common Failures¶
- A "reviewer" who contributed to building the model reviewing their own sections, which removes the independence the review stage is meant to provide.
- Findings identified during review but only discussed verbally, with no log entry to confirm they were actually corrected before sign-off.
- Review conducted without first confirming the model's stated purpose, resulting in a review that checks mechanical correctness but never asks whether the model actually answers the question it was built for.
- Sign-off recorded without a reviewer name or date, leaving no evidence the peer-review stage occurred at all.
Recommended Evidence¶
A completed peer review against this checklist should be accompanied by a findings log recording each check item, the result, any issue identified with its location, and the reviewer's name and date. Where the model has a defined external audience, attach the relevant audience-specific checklist (for example, the Lender Model Review Checklist) alongside this one rather than in place of it.
How to Use This Checklist¶
Apply this checklist after the model's builder has completed their own self-check — see the Financial Modelling Best-Practice Checklist — and before the model is signed off as ready for its intended use. Work through each item independently of the builder's own notes where possible, since the value of this stage is a genuinely independent perspective rather than a confirmation of the builder's own conclusions. Where the model is ultimately destined for a specific external audience, complete the relevant audience-specific checklist in this section as an additional, not alternative, step.
Continue Reading¶
Related Pillars¶
Related Technical Guides¶
Related Checklists¶
- Financial Modelling Best-Practice Checklist — the construction-stage self-check that precedes this reviewer stage
- Lender Model Review Checklist — an audience-specific checklist to apply in addition to this one where the model is destined for lender review
- Financial Model Audit Checklist
Related Products¶
- Financial Model Audit Engine (FMAE) — independent structural auditing, distinct from this checklist's internal peer-review stage
How OXXON tests thisRun a free structural check with FMAE
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Model Reviewer Checklist for?
Structuring the independent peer-review stage of a modelling team's internal QA process — a role-neutral checklist for whoever is acting as the second reviewer of a model, regardless of the model's intended external audience.
How is this different from the lender model review checklist?
The lender checklist is audience-specific, focused on covenant, DSCR, and debt-sculpting mechanics relevant to a lender's credit decision. This checklist is role-neutral and general-purpose, applicable to the peer-review stage of any model regardless of which external audience, if any, it will eventually be submitted to.
Who should use this checklist?
Whoever is acting as the independent second reviewer in a modelling team's internal QA workflow — a colleague with no prior involvement in the model's construction, reviewing it after the builder's own self-check is complete.
Does this checklist replace external audit?
No. It structures the internal peer-review stage described in Model Review and QA Workflow. Where a model supports a material external decision, independent external audit is typically still required in addition to this internal review, not instead of it.
When in the process should this checklist be used?
After the model's own builder has completed a self-check, typically using the Financial Modelling Best-Practice Checklist, and before the model is signed off as ready for its intended use.
References
Related Articles
Financial Modelling Best Practices — Standards Compared
Financial modelling best practice is not a single document but a landscape of named institutional standards, each publishing its own conventions for how a model should be structured, formatted, and documented. This page defines that landscape — what a named modelling standard actually is, how the FAST Standard and the ICAEW Financial Modelling Code differ in approach and scope, and how a practitioner chooses between them or applies more than one. It sits beside, not instead of, the Knowledge Centre's structural-foundation page on what makes an Excel financial model reliable — this page is about who has codified that discipline into a named standard, and how those standards compare to one another.
Model Review and QA Workflow
Model review and QA workflow is the internal process lifecycle a modelling team runs on a financial model before it is relied on externally — build, self-check, peer review, and sign-off. This page is not a description of how FMAE audits a model — that is the subject of Audit Methodologies for Financial Models, a distinct page addressing FMAE's own deterministic rule-based engine. This guide addresses the general process a modelling team runs internally, independent of any specific standard, methodology, or audit tool, and applicable whether or not the model is later submitted for independent audit at all.
Financial Modelling Best-Practice Checklist
This checklist sets out the construction-time disciplines a financial modelling team should apply while a model is being built, synthesising the common ground across the FAST Standard, the ICAEW Financial Modelling Code, and general spreadsheet engineering practice. It is not a certification checklist and does not test whether a model's calculations are correct — it is a builder's self-check aid, distinct from the Financial Model Audit Checklist, which is used for independent, post-hoc structural verification rather than during construction.
Lender Model Review Checklist
This checklist covers the checks a lender, credit committee, or independent reviewer should apply to a borrower's financial model as part of credit approval or financial close. It focuses on covenant calculation integrity, debt sculpting mechanics, cash waterfall priority, and circularity resolution specific to debt-financed models. It is intended for banks, credit teams, and advisors conducting lender-side model review ahead of a financing decision.