Filter compact Day 3 cases to identify facts that directly affect the client request.
Fact filtering is the Day 3 discipline of deciding what belongs in the answer and what belongs in the case background. A short case often includes more facts than the response should use. The goal is not to mention everything. The goal is to select the facts that change the treatment, calculation, risk assessment, recommendation, or follow-up.
Good filtering begins with the client request. If the client asks whether to accept a new order, cost behavior, capacity, cash collection, strategic fit, and risk may matter. If the client asks how to account for the order, contract terms, performance obligations, timing, collectability, and measurement may matter. The same fact pattern can support different responses depending on what is asked.
| Fact type | Use it when it affects | How to use it |
|---|---|---|
| Dates and timing | Recognition, tax year, filing, cash flow, cut-off, or implementation. | State the timing consequence directly. |
| Amounts and percentages | Materiality, profitability, variance, tax, valuation, or decision comparison. | Calculate only what supports the conclusion. |
| Contract terms | Rights, obligations, pricing, delivery, cancellation, risk, or performance. | Link the term to treatment or recommendation. |
| Stakeholder facts | Governance, lender, owner, customer, employee, regulator, or board needs. | Tailor the recommendation and communication. |
| Missing documents | Evidence, supportability, uncertainty, or follow-up. | State the assumption and document needed. |
Fact filtering fails when the reader starts highlighting facts before understanding the request. A fact is relevant only relative to a question. Revenue terms are relevant to recognition when the request is accounting treatment. They may be relevant to finance if the question is cash-flow risk. They may be relevant to assurance if the issue is evidence for reported revenue.
A practical reading habit is to underline the verb in the request: calculate, evaluate, recommend, explain, identify, advise, respond, record, or compare. The verb tells you what kind of response is needed. “Calculate” needs a number and interpretation. “Recommend” needs alternatives and criteria. “Advise” may need rule, implication, and next action.
Narrative gives context, but evidence changes the answer. A case may say the company is growing quickly, managers are busy, and staff morale is low. Those facts may be background unless they affect controls, capacity, strategic feasibility, cost behavior, or governance. Do not repeat them unless they support a professional conclusion.
Useful evidence usually has one of four jobs. It triggers the issue, supports the analysis, limits certainty, or shapes the recommendation. A fact that does none of those jobs can often be ignored in the written response.
Exhibits should be treated the same way. Do not copy every line from a table. Identify the number, trend, variance, constraint, or exception that changes the decision. Then interpret it in words.
Day 3 cases may omit information that would be available in a real engagement. The response should not collapse because a fact is missing. State the assumption, explain why the missing fact matters, and recommend follow-up if it could change the answer.
For example, if a calculation needs a selling price but the case provides only a cost estimate, do not invent a price. Explain that profitability cannot be finalized without selling price or contribution margin, then provide the analysis that can be completed from the available data. If a tax conclusion depends on residency or timing, state that the conclusion is conditional on those facts.
Missing facts should be used sparingly. Do not turn every issue into a request for more information. If the case provides enough evidence for a reasonable conclusion, make the recommendation and include a caveat only where it matters.
Fact filtering is also a writing skill. A concise answer may include one sentence for the issue, one or two facts, one short analysis step, and one recommendation. More facts do not automatically make the answer stronger. The best facts are those that explain why the conclusion is right.
If a fact supports more than one issue, use it in the issue where it matters most. Repeating the same background across several answers wastes time and makes the response look unfocused.
| Pitfall | Better approach |
|---|---|
| Highlighting facts before reading the request. | Interpret the request first, then select facts. |
| Repeating the case narrative. | Use facts only when they change analysis or recommendation. |
| Copying entire exhibits. | Extract the number, trend, or exception that matters. |
| Using missing facts as an excuse not to conclude. | State assumptions and provide conditional advice. |
| Applying the right fact to the wrong competency area. | Match the fact to the client request and professional lens. |
Use a request-fact-effect pattern. Identify the request, select the fact that matters, and explain its effect on the answer. This pattern is simple, but it solves the main Day 3 problem: converting compact case information into usable professional advice.
Fact filtering is not about reading less carefully. It is about reading more purposefully. The better the filter, the easier it is to write concise analysis that still feels supported.