If nothing was unclear or difficult, say so. Skip questions about steps you did not experience; use not applicable where appropriate.

Were requested evidence items clearly described?
Which request duplicated earlier work?
Was ownership for each item clear?
What instruction would help prepare the next review?
What coordination step should change?

Author notes / illustrative keys where applicable:
1. Evidence descriptions determine whether teams can locate and prepare the intended material. Clarify scope, period and format without using this process survey to certify the evidence itself.
2. Duplicate requests reveal where earlier evidence was not discoverable or clearly referenced. Coordinate reuse of suitable material while checking whether the new review actually requires a different period or scope.
3. Ownership clarity helps each evidence request reach a responsible preparer. Identify unassigned or overlapping responsibility before interpreting delayed responses as unwillingness or lack of compliance.
4. Preparation instructions should explain how to assemble material for the next internal review. Address the named format or scope gap without implying that following instructions establishes audit assurance.
5. Coordination suggestions expose avoidable dependencies between evidence collection, review and follow-up. Agree a concrete handoff change and assess its practicality separately from the findings of the audit.