Audit Team Guidance on Particular Audit Issues

1-Star Audits

As auditors, we are responsible for objectively evaluating an analyst’s ability to meet Wonder’s minimum quality standards. During instances where low-quality issues are present and result in a 1-Star Audit, we’re required to have another team member review to ensure all components of the research report were accounted for that could have resulted in an alternative score. 1-Star audits are serious and will impact an analyst’s permissions to the platform over time. Through the following process, we take caution to have full confidence when giving a 1-Star audit.

• Auditor discovers the research report aligns with a 1-Star audit according to our Research Job Integrity / Audit Question rubric.
• Auditor goes into #research-auditing channel to request help from a second Auditor.
  • NOTE: Auditor is encouraged to provide context on which parts of the research they’re unsure about or would like another opinion on.
• A second Auditor responds to the post to review and provides context that agrees or disagrees with the Auditor.
  • If the second Auditor disagrees, we must come to a conclusion where two team members are in agreement to proceed with a 1-Star audit. In this case, please tag either the Audit Coordinator or the Analyst Support Team Lead to advise.
• Upon collaborating with another team member, Auditor proceeds to submit research audit feedback and the coordinating audit score.

Plagiarism

Clients come to Wonder for research that is originally synthesized to empower their decision-making. Auditors are encouraged to utilize a plagiarism checker frequently. We monitor for intentional plagiarism and excessive quoting. If an Analyst submits a Research job with more than 20% plagiarism, this will result in an automatic audit score of 1 and the analyst’s permissions to the platform will be subject to removal. Through the following process, we take caution to have full confidence when giving a 1-Star audit for plagiarism

• Auditor discovers the research report is plagiarized and is eligible to receive a 1-Star audit.
  • NOTE: Auditors are not required to process each audit via plagiarism checker. However, plagiarism may be discovered through frequent use of a plagiarism checker, identifying vocabulary that does not align with commonly used Wonder language, or the language style used throughout the research report.
• Auditor goes into #research-auditing channel to inform the Analyst Support Team Lead that Plagiarism was detected above our 20% threshold.
• AS Team Lead or Audit Coordinator reviews the research report to evaluate plagiarism via Quetext plagiarism checker.
• Auditor proceeds to submit research audit feedback and a 1-Star audit score.

Second Looks

Analysts are able to request a Second Look for any first-look audit that is completed (formerly known as arbitration) if they have additional relevant context to share. Through the following process, Auditors are notified of approved Second Look requests so that they can be completed as soon as possible. Once complete, the AS Team Lead sends the Auditor feedback through Zendesk in response to the request.

• AS Team Lead posts in the #research-auditing channel to inform Auditors that a Second Look is available and needs to be done as soon as possible.
• Auditor responds to thread to claim audit and proceeds to complete the Second Look audit within 48 hours.

Gut Checks

We want analysts to succeed at Wonder. Gut Checks in the Audit Process are used to provide constructive feedback that identifies potential patterns that lead to poor quality. The purpose of these reviews is to minimize time to improved quality.

• At the end of the Second Look window, AS Team Lead informs the analyst that they will receive a Comprehensive Review and their permissions will be paused for 24 hours.