AD7 Auditors: how to read this competition properly before you start overcomplicating it

The new AD7 Auditors competition is here. And in the webinar we focused exactly on that: reading the notice properly, understanding what this competition really requires, and avoiding a number of very typical mistakes that can appear even before the exam.

Because yes, the exam matters. But it’s not the only thing that matters. And in fact, a significant part of the problems that tend to appear in these processes are not in the test itself, but in how the competition is interpreted, how the application is prepared, and how experience is justified.

Presentation Analysis of competition EPSO/AD/428/26 – Audit AD7

Don’t obsess over the number of candidates

One of the first messages we shared in the webinar was quite clear. The competition offers 448 places, which is a solid number. But getting stuck thinking whether there will be 5,000, 10,000 or 100,000 candidates doesn’t really help.

Why? Because the number of registered candidates is not the same as the number of real candidates. Not everyone shows up seriously, not everyone actually sits the exam, and not everyone has the level of preparation required to compete.

The idea is simple: instead of obsessing over numbers, focus on doing things properly. In other words, your focus should not be on others, but on avoiding your own mistakes.

The exam: one single day, fixed date, same moment for everyone

Another key point is the general logic of the exam. As we explained, the expectation is that EPSO will follow the model used in recent competitions: a single exam day, fixed date, same time for everyone.

That means you don’t choose the date. There is no flexibility to say that the date doesn’t suit you, that you’d prefer another day, or that you need more time to prepare. The only exception would be a truly justified case, which would have to be addressed directly with EPSO.

We also highlighted something practical that is often overlooked: the exam takes place at the same moment for all candidates, regardless of where they are. If you are in Madrid or Brussels, you start at one time; if you are in Dublin, one hour earlier local time; if you are in Greece, one hour later.

And yes: this is something you need to keep in mind from the start.

TAO platform: get familiar with it in advance

During the webinar, we also insisted on the use of the new TAO platform, which is already available on the EPSO website so you can get familiar with the interface.

We approached this in a very practical way. The platform is relatively simple, easy to use, with some visual customization options, although more limited for the written test. The advice is straightforward: log in beforehand, explore how it works, and avoid discovering it on the day of the exam.

Not because it’s complicated, but because anything you can remove as a variable on exam day is a win.

Languages: there is no “correct” option, only the one that works best for you

In the language section, we addressed a very common question: what should you choose as language 1 and language 2?

The formal rules are clear: you need two EU official languages, with at least C1 in language 1 and at least B2 in language 2, and they must be different. No certificate is required: the real proof is the exam itself.

But the key point is this: there is no universally correct combination. There is no rule like “always do reasoning in your native language” or “always do the field-related test in your working language”.

What we explained is more realistic: it depends on how you perform. Some candidates work better in reasoning in their working language, even if it’s not their native one. Others prefer to use that language for the technical part or for the essay. The recommendation is to test, practice, and identify what works best for you before locking your application.

And remember: you can change your language choice until the application deadline.

Eligibility: this is where the serious reading of the notice actually starts

One of the most important parts of the webinar was the explanation of eligibility requirements, especially the link between academic background and professional experience.

The core idea is that the number of years of experience required depends on the length of your university studies. If you have three years of university studies, you need seven years of experience; if you have four, you need six; if you have five, you need five.

So far, relatively straightforward.

But we highlighted something more important: within that total experience, there is a specific component that carries particular weight. And this is where the interaction between point 3.3(c) of the notice and Annex II becomes critical.

Not all relevant experience works the same way

This is where a key distinction comes in.

On the one hand, point 3.3(c) of the notice includes a broad list of activities that can be considered relevant: audit, yes, but also accounting, financial management, procurement or grant procedures, internal control, anti-fraud, risk management, banking, financial analysis, data analytics, certain IT areas, taxation or customs, programme management, consulting services, or practising law.

This makes the competition broader than many candidates initially assume.

But at the same time, there is another filter: the four years of relevant experience linked specifically to Annex II, meaning the typical auditor duties as described in the notice.

This means that total experience and audit-specific experience do not always fully overlap. In some profiles, they will. In others, they won’t.

And this is one of the key messages: you need to explain this clearly.

Your application must be written for someone who doesn’t know you

This was probably one of the most repeated points in the webinar — and for good reason.

When filling in your application, do not think like someone who knows your background. Think like someone who knows nothing about you.

Nothing is obvious.

It’s not enough to state a job title or assume the selection board will automatically understand what you did. It’s not enough to think “it says auditor, so it’s clear”. The board must be able to understand, based on what you write, that you meet the criteria and that your experience fits the competition.

And this leads to another key point: the clearer you explain tasks aligned with Annex II, the better.

Typical duties: the clearer you explain what you did, the better

When we covered Annex II, the message was direct: the more clearly you can demonstrate that you performed tasks aligned with those typical duties, the better.

This is not just a formal detail. It has practical consequences. If the board considers that part of your work was not fully audit-related or not sufficiently aligned with the relevant tasks, they may apply a correction factor and count only part of your experience.

The example is simple: if someone worked four years 50% as an auditor and 50% in a non-relevant role, only two years may be counted.

That’s why we insisted so much on not being vague or overconfident. Even strong profiles can run into problems if they don’t explain their experience properly.

Supporting documents: don’t leave it to the last minute

The documentation part also received significant attention.

The deadline to upload supporting documents is 30 September, but the advice is not to wait until then if you already have them. If documents are available, upload them early.

Relevant documents include contracts, payslips, signed and stamped recommendation letters, combinations of documents (one covering dates, another describing tasks), and also adapted evidence for non-standard profiles such as freelancers.

The approach is practical: use common sense and make sure your documents clearly reflect your professional experience.

Single Candidate Portal: understand how the CV works

We also clarified several aspects of the new Single Candidate Portal.

If you are coming from previous competitions, remember that the old portal and the new one are not the same. You need a profile in the new system. Also, your CV is part of your profile and is “imported” into your application at the time of submission.

This has an important implication: if you modify your CV after submitting your application, those changes are not automatically reflected in the submitted application. And if you reopen the application before the deadline, you must validate it again.

It may sound obvious, but we insisted on this because it has caused issues.

Another key reminder: the deadline is always at noon, not midnight.

If you include it in your application, you must be able to prove it

If you list five professional experiences in your application, you must be able to provide supporting documents for all five. You cannot assume that providing documents for the first two is “enough” if you declared more.

The logic is simple: don’t provide evidence for things you didn’t include, but don’t include things you cannot prove.

How the evaluation works

The evaluation process is relatively straightforward.

First, EPSO corrects the reasoning tests. If you pass, your field-related MCQ is scored. Candidates are then ranked, and only those among the top move on to the written test and further stages.

We referred to around 672 candidates as the cut-off for progressing to the written test, and from there the process continues until the reserve list is formed.

The overall logic follows recent EPSO competition models.

Timeline: what is official and what is not

Here we made an important distinction.

Application deadlines, document deadlines, and what is stated in the notice are official. However, the sequence shown on the EPSO website should not always be interpreted as fixed or legally binding.

In fact, the order of certain phases may be reversed depending on operational needs.

So the key takeaway is: do not treat indicative timelines as legal certainty.

We also shared an estimate — clearly presented as such — that the exam could take place before the summer break, provided there are no technical issues in other competitions.

The exam will be long: take the whole day off

One of the most practical pieces of advice was very simple: the exam will likely take up most of your day.

The sequence is clear: reasoning in the morning, a long break, multiple choice at midday, and the written test in the afternoon.

The recommendation is clear: don’t plan that day as a half-day exam.

It isn’t.

Reasoning: watch out for verbal

The reasoning section was explained with realism.

Formally, the threshold is not extreme: 10/20 in verbal and 10/20 combined for numerical and abstract. But the main issue tends to be verbal reasoning.

Not because of language level, but because of overconfidence or underestimating the difficulty. EPSO has improved this part significantly, and verbal reasoning can be challenging even in your native language.

For numerical and abstract, the advice is more about strategy: stay calm, remember there is no negative marking, and don’t get stuck on a difficult question.

We also emphasized fatigue. Doing 65 minutes of reasoning without breaks is demanding. That’s why you should train under similar conditions.

Written test: it’s not about showing you know more

For the written test, the approach is clear.

It’s not about demonstrating additional knowledge. It’s about understanding the document provided by EPSO, structuring your response, writing clearly, and adapting to the audience.

In 40 minutes, what is expected is not a content-heavy essay, but a well structured, clear and concise text.

And above all: use the document provided. No need to bring in external knowledge.

Field-related MCQ: what to expect

The expectation is not a hyper-specialised test, but rather one focused on general principles and methodologies in the audit field, accessible to different profiles.

Q&A: where the key points became sharper

The Q&A session helped clarify several aspects.

You can adapt your CV for different competitions if you manage timing properly. Reserve lists typically last several years, although there is no absolute guarantee.

The four years of audit experience are mandatory, although they can be combined with other relevant experience under point 3.3(c). And if your documentation shows that different functions were performed in an integrated way, it does not automatically mean only a small percentage will be counted.

And finally, one key YSE message: don’t treat rumours as facts.

To close

We closed with a simple message: don’t leave your application to the last day.

But beyond that, the overall takeaway is clear. This competition can be read well or poorly. And a significant part of your work starts here: understanding what the notice really requires, structuring your experience properly, and building an application that leaves no unnecessary gaps.