An appropriate review of audit work performed

This is first mention in the IESBA Code: "Examples of actions that might be safeguards to address such threats [self-interest/familiarity/intimidation] created by offering or accepting such an inducement include: ... "Having an appropriate reviewer, who is not otherwise involved in undertaking the professional activity, review any work performed or decisions made by the accountant with respect to the individual or organization from which the accountant accepted the inducement." Then later, as a generic example of safeguards: "Having an appropriate reviewer who was not a member of the team review the work performed or advise as necessary might address a self-review threat." And a definition: "An appropriate reviewer is a professional with the necessary knowledge, skills, experience and authority to review, in an objective manner, the relevant work performed or service provided. Such an individual might be a professional accountant." For conflict of interest: "Having an appropriate reviewer, who is not involved in providing the service or otherwise affected by the conflict, review the work performed to assess whether the key judgments and conclusions are appropriate." And so on ... I cannot give you a rule - it will depend on the circumstances. "independent second partner" and "senior member of firm" might not be practical in a smaller firm - e.g. a smaller firm might not have anyone else within the firm to objectively review a valuation and so need an external review. I don't think there's any problem using the term "appropriate reviewer" but rather than write "audit work or service performed" I would be specific about the service e.g. "audit work or valuation of xxx".