Exhibits
- Approved by
- Panaversity ·
Recorded on November 8, 2026. Every exhibit shows what Nisha actually did in the practical. Nothing here comes from the 2.0 lab, which is your exercise, not hers.
All the facts in these exhibits come from the practical log, the six draft files and ChatGPT's review file.1
Exhibit 1: Nisha's method: six steps, with human checks in between

| Stage | Who | What happens | Why it changes the decision |
|---|---|---|---|
| Step 1 | Claude | Writes a first draft. | Gives Nisha something concrete to react to. Her decisions on scope and voice came from reading it. |
| Human check 1 | Nisha | Reads the draft, answers Claude's questions, adds missing context, cuts the scope and fixes mistakes before any grading. | Sets the scope before anyone grades, so later grades judge the book she wants. |
| Step 2 | Claude | Grades the draft out of 10 in three areas: accuracy, quality, and how easy it is for a beginner to understand. | Shows which area is weakest, so she knows what to fix first. |
| Human check 2 | Nisha | Sets clear rules before Claude works alone. | Turns her decisions into written rules, so Claude's solo rounds stay inside them. |
| Step 3 | Claude | Improves the draft, aiming for 9.5 in each area. It improves, grades again and repeats the rounds by itself, without being asked for each one. | Fixes many problems without her, and shows where self-review stops. |
| Step 4 | ChatGPT | Reviews and grades the result and its sources, with specific fixes. | A reviewer that did not write the draft finds different problems, so she does not rely on one judgment. |
| Human check 3 | Nisha | Sorts ChatGPT's points into accept, change and "not now". | Keeps the decision with her, so the review does not choose the changes or grow the work. |
| Step 5 | Claude | Uses ChatGPT's review to improve the work again. | Turns accepted advice into a new version, and lets Claude challenge points it cannot confirm. |
| Step 6 | Nisha | A person checks the facts against their sources, reviews any problems still open, and decides when the work is ready. | Replaces judgments with evidence. Only official sources show which disputed claims are right, and only she decides when to stop. |
Steps 1 to 6 come from the method taught in class. The three extra human checks were Nisha's own addition.
Exhibit 2: Nisha's key prompts
The prompts below are copied exactly as they were sent.
a) First prompt to Claude (step 1)
I am a chartered accountant from Pakistan (ICAP) and a gold medalist. My name is Nisha. I have identified a problem: there are two main sets of accounting rules in the world. The first is IFRS, which is used internationally. The second is US GAAP, which is followed in America. IFRS is principle-based, while US GAAP is rule-based. Chartered accountants around the world are skilled in IFRS, but American companies follow US GAAP.
I want to write a book that helps accountants on both sides of the fence understand the other set of rules and make the move from one to the other.
My readers are:
- IFRS-trained accountants, like chartered accountants in Pakistan, who want to work for US companies or Big 4 firms
- US GAAP-trained accountants who need to work with IFRS
Please draft:
1. A basic concept or description of the book
2. An outline of the chaptersb) Grading prompt to Claude (step 2, sent in the same message as Nisha's answer about the gold medal line)
Now please review the current version of the document and grade it out of 10 in three areas:
1. Accuracy: Are the facts, dates, rules and standard numbers, correct? Check each standard number in brackets, and tell me if you are unsure about any of them.
2. Quality: Is it well organized, complete and professional? Would a publisher or a Big 4 hiring manager take it seriously?
3. Ease of understanding: Is it easy to follow for my readers? They know basic accounting but are new to the other framework, and many speak English as a second language.
For each area, give:
- The score out of 10
- The reasons for the score
- The specific problems, and where they are (for example, "Preface, paragraph 2" or "Chapter 12")
- What would need to change to reach 9.5
Be strict. Do not give a high score unless the work earns it.
Do not change the document yet. Only grade it.c) The self-improvement instruction to Claude (end of the step 3 prompt)
Then improve the document by yourself: grade it again in the same three areas and repeat until every area reaches 9.5. Stay strict. Do not raise a score unless the problem is really fixed.
After each round, show a short table with the round number, the three scores and the main changes. Save the final result as version 3.d) Review prompt to ChatGPT (step 4, shortened)
I am Nisha, a chartered accountant from Pakistan (ICAP). I am writing a book called "The Bilingual Accountant: Moving Between IFRS and US GAAP". [...] I have attached the preface and table of contents (version 3). Please review it as a strict expert who knows both IFRS and US GAAP.
Decisions I have already made. Please don't reverse them: [four decisions listed]
Please grade it out of 10 in three areas: accuracy, quality, ease of understanding. Open each source link and check that it supports what the document says.
For each area, give the score and why, each problem and where it is, and the exact fix.
At the end, list any facts or sources you could not check, and anything you are unsure about.
Be strict. Do not rewrite the whole document. Only list the problems and fixes.The full prompts are in the practical log.
Exhibit 3: Every grade, from first draft to final version

| Version | Graded by | Accuracy | Quality | Ease | What was happening |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Version 2 | Claude | 7 | 6.5 | 7 | Step 2: Claude grades its own work |
| Version 3, round 1 | Claude | 8.5 | 8.0 | 7.5 | Step 3: Nisha's decisions applied |
| Version 3, round 2 | Claude | 9.5 | 9.2 | 9.0 | Step 3: fixes and fact checks |
| Version 3, round 3 | Claude | 9.5 | 9.5 | 9.3 | Step 3: final polish, and Claude stops |
| Version 3 | ChatGPT | 8 | 7 | 8 | Step 4: independent second opinion |
| Version 4 | Claude | 9.3 | 8.8 | 9.0 | Step 5: after using ChatGPT's review |
| Version 5 | Claude | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.3 | Step 6: Claude checks Nisha's edits (last grade) |
All grades were given by the AI tools against Nisha's prompt and her three areas. They are judgments, not probabilities of correctness and not test results. A 9.5 does not mean the draft is 95% right, and a lower grade does not make a reviewer more reliable. The reviewers also saw different information, so their grades are not a fair comparison. The target was 9.5 in every area. Version 6 (the final version) was not graded, on Nisha's instruction.
A score is a reviewer's judgment. Evidence is what makes the judgment defensible. When reviewers disagree, Nisha must identify their assumptions, inspect their reasoning and verify the disputed claims.
Exhibit 4: How the draft changed

| Version | Made by | What changed | Words | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claude | Full book concept: market, readers, 25 detailed chapters, open decisions | 2,470 | 4 |
| 2 | Claude, after human check 1 | Cut to preface and table of contents, in Nisha's voice and plain English | 1,531 | 4 |
| 3 | Claude, after steps 2 and 3 | Key to short forms, mistakes fixed, plainer titles | 2,247 | 9 |
| 4 | Claude, after step 5 | 23 of ChatGPT's 27 points used, most of them rewritten | 2,606 | 15 |
| 5 | Nisha | 6 groups of small edits (8 places): shorter lines, fewer hard terms | 2,611 | 15 |
| 6 | Claude, on Nisha's instruction | One unconfirmed note removed: final version | 2,599 | 15 |
Words are counted for the whole file, including the list of sources.
Exhibit 5: Who caught what

Warning
Not a controlled test. Claude and ChatGPT saw different versions and different information. Claude reviewed its own drafts inside the project where it wrote them. ChatGPT saw only version 3 and its sources, and never saw version 4. Read the counts below as a record of one evening, not as proof that one reviewer is better.
Nisha's private notes, compared with the two AI reviews.
| # | Problem Nisha noted | Claude's self-review (steps 2 and 3) | ChatGPT's review (step 4) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The preface said foreign companies in the US can use IFRS. This is too broad, because only some can. | Caught | Already fixed |
| 2 | One source was from 2018. | Caught | Already fixed |
| 3 | Chapter 22 pointed to the wrong US standard. | Caught | Already fixed |
| 4 | Chapter 12 missed the US standard on equity investments. | Caught, not fixed | Caught |
| 5 | The preface said "most books only list differences" without proof. | Caught | Already fixed |
| 6 | Chapter 13 covers debt but missed the main US standard on debt. | Missed | Caught |
| 7 | Chapter 5's brackets listed IAS 1 but not IFRS 18 (the chapter line itself mentioned IFRS 18). | Partly | Caught |
| 8 | Chapter 25 contained news that would soon be out of date. | Missed (Claude added it) | Partly |
| 9 | Several chapter lines were much longer than one line. | Partly | Missed, and its fixes made lines longer |
| 10 | The preface paragraph on foreign companies was too technical for beginners. | Missed | Missed, and its fix made it more technical |
| 11 | Chapter 18 said "some subsidiaries" without saying which ones. | Missed | Caught |
| 12 | Chapter 22 (version 4) used "foreign private issuer", a term the book never explains. Found in step 6. | Missed | Did not see version 4 |
"Already fixed" means Claude had fixed the problem before ChatGPT saw the draft. For note 7, the practical log shows that Claude added a line about IFRS 18 to Chapter 5 in step 3 but did not add it to the chapter's list of standards, so it is marked "Partly". Notes 1 to 6 were made while reading version 2, notes 7 to 11 while reading version 3, and note 12 during step 6. This was not a controlled test, because the two reviewers saw different versions. The notes are recorded in Appendix A of the practical log.
Exhibit 6: Nisha's fact check (step 6)
| # | Fact in the book | Checked against | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | More than 140 countries and regions (jurisdictions) require IFRS | IFRS Foundation, March 2025 roadmap (page 18) | Confirmed |
| 2 | US companies listed in the US use US GAAP, and some foreign companies can use IFRS | SEC concept release 33-11376 (page 10), and the SEC 2007 rule | Confirmed |
| 3 | IFRS 18 replaces IAS 1 from January 1, 2027, and early use is allowed | IFRS Foundation, IFRS 18 page | Confirmed |
| 4 | Start dates of the new US expense disclosure rule (ASU 2024-03) | FASB, ASU 2025-01 | Confirmed |
| 5 | A company that loses foreign private issuer status must switch to US GAAP | SEC Financial Reporting Manual, Topic 6 (6120.2, 6120.4) | Confirmed |
| 6 | Which subsidiaries can use IFRS 19 | IFRS 19, paragraph 7 | Confirmed |
| 7 | IFRS 1 covers adopting IFRS for the first time | IFRS Foundation, IFRS 1 page | Confirmed |
| 8 | What the PCAOB oversees | PCAOB, Oversight page | Confirmed |
| 9 | IFRS S1 and S2 were issued in June 2023 and are separate from the accounting standards | IFRS Foundation, ISSB introduction | Confirmed |
| 10 | The SEC paused its climate rules and proposed to withdraw them on May 29, 2026 | SEC proposal page and press release 2026-49 | Confirmed |
| 11 | US GAAP topic numbers, including ASC 320, 321, 835-20, 360 and 105-10-05-1 | FASB Accounting Standards Codification | Confirmed |
| 12 | The plain-English lines still say the right thing | Nisha's own judgment as an accountant (not an official source) | Accepted after review |
Recorded item by item in Appendix B of the practical log. Nisha's final prompt sums up the result as "All confirmed".
Exhibit 7: The final result: table of contents (version 6)
The Bilingual Accountant: Moving Between IFRS and US GAAP, by Nisha
Part I: Background on the two frameworks
- The two frameworks and who uses them
- Principles-based and rules-based: what the words really mean
- How to find answers: the standards and the vocabulary
- US financial reporting: the SEC, auditors and controls
Part II: The main differences, topic by topic
- Presentation of financial statements and cash flows
- Revenue
- Inventory
- Property, plant and equipment, and investment property
- Intangible assets and research and development
- Impairment, assets held for sale and discontinued operations
- Leases
- Financial instruments I: classification, measurement and credit losses
- Financial instruments II: derivatives, hedging, debt and equity
- Provisions, contingencies and events after the reporting period
- Income taxes
- Employee benefits and share-based payment
- Foreign currency and hyperinflation
- Business combinations and consolidation
- Earnings per share, segments, interim reporting and related parties
- Rules for special industries
Part III: Moving from one framework to the other
- Converting financial statements between the frameworks
- When a company changes its framework
- Career guide A: from IFRS to US GAAP
- Career guide B: from US GAAP to IFRS
- What is changing
Appendices
- A. Master differences and reference tables
- B. Terminology dictionary
- C. Journal-entry quick reference
- D. Self-test and interview questions
- E. Reading list
- F. Excel conversion toolkit
The full version 6 file also has a short preface, a one-line description and the main standards for each chapter, a key to the short forms, and 15 official sources.
Exhibit 8: Time and cost
| 1 h 40 min | 6 | 9 | About Rs 60,000 |
|---|---|---|---|
| From the first draft (22:09) to the final version (23:49) | Versions of the document | Prompts: 7 to Claude, 2 to ChatGPT | A month for both subscriptions (about Rs 30,000 each, made up for the case) |
| Saved at | What was finished |
|---|---|
| 22:09 | Version 1: Claude's first draft (step 1) |
| 22:27 | Version 2: after Nisha's first check |
| 22:50 | Version 3: after Claude's grading and three improvement rounds (steps 2 and 3) |
| 23:11 | ChatGPT's review (step 4) |
| 23:29 | Version 4: after Claude used ChatGPT's review (step 5) |
| 23:36 | Version 5: Nisha's own edits (step 6) |
| 23:49 | Version 6: final version (step 6) |
Times are when each file was saved on November 8, 2026. The time spent writing the first prompt, before version 1, is not included.
Exhibit 9: Words to know
AI Worker. An AI tool given a job, a brief and limits, as described in The New Way of Working. In this case, Claude is the writer and ChatGPT is the reviewer.
Chartered accountant (CA) and ICAP. A CA is a highly trained, qualified accountant. In Pakistan, CAs qualify through the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan (ICAP).
Big 4. The four largest accounting firms in the world: Deloitte, EY, KPMG and PwC.
IFRS. International Financial Reporting Standards, the accounting rules used in most of the world. They are written by the IASB (International Accounting Standards Board).
US GAAP. US Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, the accounting rules used in the United States. They are written by the FASB (Financial Accounting Standards Board).
The Codification (ASC). The official database of US GAAP rules, organized by topic number. For example, ASC 330 is the topic on inventory.
SEC. The US Securities and Exchange Commission, which regulates companies listed on US stock markets.
Foreign private issuer. A non-US company listed in the US that meets the SEC's conditions. It may prepare its accounts under IFRS (as issued by the IASB) instead of US GAAP.
PCAOB. The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, the US body that oversees the auditors of companies listed in the US.
Standard. One official rule document on one topic, such as IAS 2 (inventories under IFRS).
IAS 1 and IFRS 18. IAS 1 is the IFRS standard on how to set out the main financial statements. IFRS 18 replaces it for years starting on or after January 1, 2027.
IFRS 1. The IFRS standard for a company that starts using IFRS for the first time.
Subsidiary. A company that is controlled by another company, its parent.
Jurisdiction. A country or region that makes its own rules, such as which accounting standards its companies must use.
Listed company. A company whose shares are traded on a stock market.
Preface and table of contents. The preface is the short introduction at the start of a book. The table of contents lists the book's chapters.
Prompt. The instruction or question you type to an AI tool.
Project. A workspace in Claude or ChatGPT that keeps a task's chats and files together. Rebuilt Claude projects can also start separate threads, but Nisha did not use them.
Grading and self-improvement. Asking the AI to score its own work against clear areas, then to improve it and score it again, round after round.
Source and fact check. A source is the place a fact comes from. A fact check means opening the source and confirming that it really says what the document says.
ESL. English as a second language: readers whose first language is not English.
This case was prepared for class discussion. It is not meant to show whether the choices described were good or bad, and it is not a source of accounting advice.
Sources
- Nisha's AI Team: Practical Log, with the draft files listed in its Appendix C.↑
- Owner
- Panaversity