Cn Ib Inquiry Response Review

CN IB Inquiry Response Review

Turn each regulatory question into an auditable set of answer obligations, then test whether the response and intermediary work actually satisfy them.

Principles

1. Review against the regulator's verbs and subquestions, not only the response headings.
2. Separate the issuer's explanation from sponsor, counsel, and accountant procedures and opinions.
3. A conclusion without evidence is incomplete; a procedure without procedure evidence is not demonstrated.
4. Track whether material response content is synchronized into the prospectus or other filing.
5. Compare rounds so that a new explanation does not silently contradict an earlier response.
6. Mark judgment calls and likely follow-up questions explicitly.

Workflow

1. Establish scope

Confirm the inquiry round, regulator, board, filing version, response cut-off, responsible intermediaries, and documents in scope. Preserve the original question numbering and wording.

2. Decompose every question

Read references/question-decomposition.md. Split the question by:

• each operative verb such as 说明, 披露, 量化分析, 核查, or 发表明确意见;
• each period, entity, product, transaction, and exception;
• each addressed party;
• each requested comparison, explanation, evidence item, and filing update.

Use one row per atomic obligation and addressee in assets/inquiry-review-template.csv. Do not combine issuer disclosure and intermediary opinion in one untestable row.

3. Test the issuer response

For each issuer item, determine whether it is answered, partial, unanswered, or genuinely not_applicable. Check:

• direct answer to the requested point;
• relevant facts, periods, units, definitions, and denominators;
• quantitative support where the question requests it;
• explanation of exceptions and adverse evidence;
• exact source or filing locator;
• consistency with prior rounds and other filing documents.

Read references/response-quality.md before classifying completeness.

4. Test intermediary work

For sponsor, counsel, or accountant rows, require:

• procedures responsive to the specific risk;
• procedure evidence, sample scope, period, counterparties, or records reviewed;
• treatment of exceptions and limitations;
• an explicit opinion where requested;
• a logical connection between procedures, evidence, and opinion.

Do not accept 已核查相关资料 as a sufficient procedure description.

5. Test filing synchronization

When the response adds or changes material information, record whether the prospectus or other filing must be updated and the exact updated locator. Use cn-ib-cross-document-check for conflicting figures and cn-ib-filing-refresh-control for a broader refresh.

6. Validate the review matrix

Run:

bashCopy code
python3 scripts/review_inquiry_matrix.py inquiry-review.csv --output inquiry-issues.csv

The script detects structural and closure defects. It cannot decide whether prose is substantively persuasive; review that manually using references/follow-up-risk.md.

7. Produce the reviewer view

Group findings into:

• unanswered or partially answered obligations;
• missing evidence and weak quantitative support;
• insufficient intermediary procedures or missing opinions;
• prospectus synchronization gaps;
• inconsistencies with prior rounds;
• likely follow-up questions and recommended remediation.

8. Apply accepted response edits

If the user asks to revise an existing Word response:

• keep the original file unchanged;
• use native Word tracked changes by default for every insertion and deletion;
• edit only the accepted issue rows and keep revisions as local as possible;
• preserve existing revisions and comments unless specifically asked to resolve them;
• do not replace entire paragraphs when a sentence-level amendment is sufficient;
• do not fake revisions with colored text, highlighting, or manual strikethrough;
• use a transparent revision author such as Codex when none is specified;
• verify the revision markup structurally, re-render every changed page, and rerun the obligation review.

Return a clean accepted copy only if the user requests it separately.

Output contract

Deliver:

1. overall status: BLOCK, MATERIAL GAPS, MINOR GAPS, or READY FOR REVIEW;
2. question-to-obligation matrix preserving original numbering;
3. prioritized defect log with exact response locators;
4. intermediary procedure and opinion gaps;
5. filing synchronization list;
6. predicted follow-up questions, with reasons;
7. scope limitations and unresolved professional judgments.

When direct edits are requested, deliver the tracked-changes DOCX as the default corrected document.

Never state that a response is complete solely because every heading contains text.