The accounting glossary
What is the four-eyes principle?
The four-eyes principle, also called maker-checker, separates preparation from approval. One person prepares the work; another examines it and decides whether to approve it. In accounting, that second view helps identify unsupported balances, missing evidence and reasoning that needs correction before the file is delivered.
The short answer
Maker-checker is an application of segregation of duties. The maker prepares and documents; the checker reviews the evidence and records a decision. A second name on a worksheet is not enough: the review must concern an identifiable version of the work, with a dated conclusion and any changes or rejection reasons traceable to the file.
Give preparation and approval different jobs
| Role | Responsibility | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Preparer / maker | Build the supported balance and explain it | Workpaper and documents |
| Reviewer / checker | Examine and approve or return the work | Dated conclusion and reason |
| Engagement owner | Resolve outstanding actions | Owner and next step |
Scroll the table if needed.
A fictional bank-cycle review
The value lies in the explanation of what changed, not in the number of clicks. The file should let the recipient follow the missing evidence, its resolution and the version that was finally approved.
Prepare
The preparer documents a fictional $245,300 bank balance and submits the cycle for review.
Return for completion
The reviewer identifies a missing statement for a foreign-currency account representing $15,300 and records the reason.
Review and approve
The preparer adds the statement; the reviewer checks the updated version and records the approval.
An approval belongs to a version
When a balance or its support changes after approval, examine the effect on the conclusion. Preserve the link between the work reviewed and the approval record. An old sign-off should not be treated as evidence that a changed figure has already been checked.
For a very small team, name the review arrangement explicitly instead of creating a fictional second reviewer. The process can be proportionate, but a single person’s check is not an independent four-eyes review. NIST’s segregation-of-duties control is a useful reference for thinking about responsibilities, rather than a certification of a particular software product.
The review decision remains with the firm
In Close Review, cycles move from to-do through preparation and review to approval. Once a firm has two reviewers, no one approves their own cycle. Reopenings are recorded, and proposed adjusting entries stay identifiable in the workpaper.
AI can support the preparation and commentary described on the Close Review page. Approval is still a professional decision. Keep the evidence and the decision clear enough that another person can understand the conclusion without relying on the preparer’s memory.
Common questions
What does maker-checker mean?
Maker means the person preparing the work; checker means the person reviewing it. The principle separates those roles for the approval concerned.
Should a rejection include a reason?
Yes. A specific reason lets the preparer identify the missing evidence or correction and lets the reviewer check that it was resolved.
Is one person checking their own work four eyes?
No. It is a self-check. A four-eyes review involves a distinct reviewer and an identifiable decision on the work.
Sources for further reading
Dated source checks do not replace review by the professional responsible for your engagement.
Let’s talk about your firm
A conversation about the way you work.
Tell us who you are, what interests you and what you want to organize. A few details are enough to start.
WhatsApp opens an external service. Use your business contact details only, without client information.
Talk on WhatsApp