AACE EVP: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Use this focused AACE EVP page to drill Revisions and Data Maintenance decisions before returning to mixed practice, timed mocks, and the full PM Mastery question bank.

Topic snapshot

Sample questions

These questions are original PM Mastery practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

During the May closeout review, the project controls analyst finds that April actual costs of $85,000 were posted to the wrong control account. The accounting manager confirms the cost belongs to the same contract but to a different control account. The April customer report has already been issued, and there is no approved scope or budget change. Which documentation package best supports correcting the May EVMS database without obscuring April performance history?

• A. A forecast update showing the revised EAC and a trend log entry documenting that the control account manager expects no future cost impact
• B. A May journal entry total and a management instruction to adjust cumulative actual cost without changing the published April report package
• C. A revised April baseline file, a new control account budget spread, and a variance narrative stating that the April cost variance is no longer applicable
• D. Accounting source evidence, correction approval, a clear audit trail of the April and May values, and a report note explaining the prior-period correction’s effect on cumulative performance

Best answer: D

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: A prior-period correction should be supported by evidence that shows what was wrong, who authorized the correction, what values changed, and how the change affects previously reported and current cumulative performance. Because the April report was already issued and no scope or budget change exists, the correction should not be treated as a baseline revision or used to erase the original performance history. The proper package preserves the audit trail between accounting records, control account actual costs, and management reporting. It also gives stakeholders a transparent explanation of the prior-period effect so current CPI, CV, EAC, and variance narratives can be interpreted correctly.

This supports the accounting correction while preserving traceability to the original reported period and explaining the effect on performance data.

Question 2

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

At the May status cutoff, the project controls analyst finds that April actual costs were posted to the wrong control account. The April customer performance report has already been issued, and the accounting system corrected the posting in May. The contract reporting procedure requires traceability of prior submitted values and explanations for any prior-period adjustments. The control account manager asks the analyst to overwrite the April report file so the historical trend chart “looks clean.” What is the best professional action?

• A. Overwrite the April report file because the corrected accounting record is now the best available data.
• B. Preserve the issued April record, document the correction with an audit trail, and show the reconciliation impact in the May report.
• C. Leave the error uncorrected in all EVMS reports because prior customer reports cannot be changed after submission.
• D. Move the same amount through management reserve so the control account trend is not affected.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: When a prior-period error is discovered after a report has been issued, disciplined data maintenance should preserve the original submitted record and maintain a clear audit trail. The accounting correction still needs to be reflected, but it should be documented as a prior-period adjustment or reconciliation item according to the reporting procedure. Overwriting historical records without explanation destroys traceability and can make variance trends, customer reports, and EVMS surveillance evidence unreliable. The appropriate action is transparent correction, not silent replacement. This protects data integrity while allowing management to understand the effect of the corrected actual cost posting.

This preserves prior-period traceability while transparently reconciling the accounting correction in the current reporting cycle.

Question 3

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

At the June 30 status review, the customer asks why the May 31 earned-value history in the current EVMS database does not match the May customer submittal.

Prior-period revisions policy: After a customer submittal, prior-period PV, EV, or AC may be changed only by an approved baseline change or a documented accounting correction. Otherwise, corrections are posted in the current period with an audit trail.

Additional facts:

• June physical accomplishment earned $600,000 of EV at budgeted value.
• The change log shows no approved baseline change or accounting correction affecting May.

Which finding is the data-maintenance weakness most likely to undermine EVMS credibility during review, audit, or customer reporting?

• A. Prior-period May EV was increased by $250,000 without an approved correction, preventing the submitted May history from being reproduced.
• B. June current-period EV of $600,000 is lower than current-period AC of $1,000,000, requiring cost variance analysis.
• C. May AC remained $3,900,000 while June cumulative AC increased to $4,900,000, showing $1,000,000 of current-period cost.
• D. June cumulative PV increased by $800,000 from May, indicating additional baseline work was scheduled after May.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: EVMS data maintenance must preserve a reproducible performance history after customer reporting. Here, June cumulative EV of $4,450,000 less June earned value of $600,000 implies opening May EV of $3,850,000. That does not match the May customer submittal EV of $3,600,000, so May EV was effectively increased by $250,000. Because the policy allows prior-period changes only for an approved baseline change or documented accounting correction, and neither exists, the issue is not merely unfavorable performance. It is a historical data-integrity weakness that can make audit trails, variance explanations, and customer reports unreliable.

The June database implies May EV of $3,850,000, which is $250,000 higher than the submitted May EV with no documented authorization.

Question 4

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

A project change board has approved a baseline change effective next reporting period. The change transfers a test work package from Control Account 1 to Control Account 2, assigns a new control account manager, and uses 300 hours from management reserve. The customer monthly earned-value report is due in two days and the contract requires disclosure of approved baseline changes that affect control-account responsibility or reserve use.

What communication should the project controls lead issue before the report is submitted?

• A. Record the 300 hours as a current-period cost variance so the baseline can remain unchanged until the next internal review cycle.
• B. Tell both control account managers to coordinate informally this month and update the responsibility assignment matrix after the customer report is accepted.
• C. Submit the customer report using the old control-account responsibility and mention the reserve use only if the customer asks for detail.
• D. Send a change implementation notice that identifies the approval, effective date, responsibility transfer, reserve drawdown, baseline-reporting effect, and required customer disclosure.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: When an approved change affects control-account responsibility, management reserve use, and customer reporting, the communication must be formal, timely, and traceable. The project controls lead should ensure the affected control account managers, baseline records, responsibility assignment matrix, change log, and customer report all reflect the same authorized change. Management reserve should not be hidden in performance variances, and responsibility should not be handled by informal coordination after reporting. The key communication is not just that a change was approved; it must state what changed, who is now accountable, when it is effective, how reserve is being applied to the performance measurement baseline, and what must be disclosed externally under the reporting requirement.

This communicates the approved baseline revision with the responsibility, reserve, timing, and customer-reporting facts needed to preserve traceability.

Question 5

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

At the September 30 status cycle, an audit finds that approved change CR-27 was omitted from the August 31 performance measurement baseline. CR-27 was approved by the change control board on July 10 with an effective date of July 1.

August 31 report originally issued:

CR-27 adds BAC of $200,000. Its approved time-phased PV through August is $140,000. Objective accomplishment on CR-27 through August supports EV of $100,000. The $115,000 of actual costs for CR-27 was already included in the August AC above. Use SV = EV - PV and CV = EV - AC.

Which retroactive-change control best preserves the audit trail, approval evidence, baseline history, and management understanding?

• A. Leave the baseline unchanged and move the $115,000 of CR-27 actual cost out of the control account until the next formal rebaseline.
• B. Post all $200,000 of CR-27 BAC and $100,000 of EV in September only, leaving the August baseline and performance report unchanged.
• C. Enter CR-27 as an approved prior-period baseline correction, retain the original August report, and show restated August cumulative values of PV $1,140,000, EV $1,020,000, AC $990,000, BAC $2,200,000, SV -$120,000, and CV $30,000.
• D. Overwrite the archived August report with the corrected values and remove the original report extract to prevent conflicting management records.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: An approved change that was effective in a prior period but omitted from the baseline should be handled as a controlled prior-period correction, not hidden in the current period or erased from history. The calculation is cumulative: PV increases by $140,000, EV increases by $100,000, and BAC increases by $200,000. AC stays at $990,000 because the CR-27 actual costs were already included. The corrected August values are PV $1,140,000, EV $1,020,000, AC $990,000, and BAC $2,200,000. Therefore, SV is $1,020,000 - $1,140,000 = -$120,000, and CV is $1,020,000 - $990,000 = $30,000. Preserving the original report, linking the change to its approval, and explaining the restatement gives management a clear and auditable view of what changed and why.

This keeps the approval trail and original history while transparently restating the cumulative baseline and performance values affected by the omitted approved change.

Question 6

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

At the 30 September status date, a monthly customer earned value report is being finalized for control account CA-240.

Accounting reconciliation for the same cutoff shows:

• General ledger costs posted to CA-240 through 30 September: $1,910,000
• Approved accrual for material received and installed before 30 September but not yet posted: $130,000
• Approved correction for labor mischarged to CA-240 from another control account: $40,000 credit
• No other unsupported reconciling items remain

Project rules state: reconciled AC = posted costs + approved accruals - approved corrections. The customer report may be issued after correcting draft AC if the net correction is no more than 1.0% of reconciled AC. A forecast update review is required if reconciliation changes cumulative CPI by 0.020 or more. CPI = EV / AC, rounded to three decimals.

Which conclusion is best?

• A. Issue the report using draft AC of $1,980,000 because the material accrual has not yet posted to the general ledger.
• B. Revise AC to $2,040,000 and require a forecast update review because the labor mischarge should remain until next month.
• C. Withhold the customer report because the draft AC differs from reconciled AC by $20,000.
• D. Revise AC to $2,000,000, report CPI of 1.050, and issue the report without a forecast update review triggered solely by reconciliation.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: Reliable reconciliation for earned value reporting depends on using the correct cutoff, including supported accruals, removing approved mischarges, and applying the stated reporting tolerances. Here, reconciled AC is $1,910,000 + $130,000 - $40,000 = $2,000,000. The draft AC must be corrected upward by $20,000. Since $20,000 is exactly 1.0% of reconciled AC, it is within the allowed reporting rule, and no unsupported items remain. The draft CPI was $2,100,000 / $1,980,000 = 1.061. The reconciled CPI is $2,100,000 / $2,000,000 = 1.050. The change of 0.011 is below the 0.020 trigger, so reconciliation alone does not require a forecast update review.

Reconciled AC is $2,000,000, the $20,000 correction is within 1.0%, and CPI changes from 1.061 to 1.050, less than the 0.020 trigger.

Question 7

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

A control account is being reported at the May 31 status date. The EVMS procedure defines cost variance as \(CV = EV - AC\) and schedule variance as \(SV = EV - PV\).

No work on the changed scope was planned, performed, or costed before May 31. Which reporting treatment best separates current performance from approved baseline maintenance?

• A. Add the $120,000 change to May PV and BAC, report May SV of -$170,000, and explain that the larger variance is due to the approved change.
• B. Hold the $120,000 outside the baseline until performance improves, and report only the revised forecast in the management report.
• C. Report May CV of -$70,000 and SV of -$50,000, and add the approved $120,000 to the baseline for June-forward work with an audit trail.
• D. Add the $120,000 change to May EV, report May CV of $50,000 and SV of $70,000, and revise the baseline to match the new scope.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: Approved baseline maintenance should not be mixed into the measurement of current-period performance. At the May 31 status date, the changed scope had no planned work, earned progress, or actual cost before June 1. Therefore May performance is calculated from the existing cumulative values: CV = $450,000 - $520,000 = -$70,000, and SV = $450,000 - $500,000 = -$50,000. The approved $120,000 change should be incorporated into the performance measurement baseline for the authorized June-forward work, supported by change approval and an audit trail. That preserves the integrity of reported performance history while keeping the baseline current for authorized scope.

This keeps May performance based on the work actually planned and performed by May 31 while incorporating the approved change prospectively into the maintained baseline.

Question 8

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

A locked June 30 management report for control account CA-410 showed cumulative EV = USD 9.6 million and AC = USD 10.4 million, so CPI = EV/AC = 0.92. On July 12, an EVMS data-maintenance review found a signed acceptance record dated June 28 for a milestone with budgeted value USD 0.8 million that had been omitted from the June report. The change board approved a prior-period data correction. If the July trend file restates June EV to USD 10.4 million with no change to June AC, the June CPI becomes 1.00. The July dashboard would show the June CPI as 1.00 without any notation. What is the best earned-value reporting conclusion?

• A. The dashboard should report June CPI as 0.96 by averaging the locked and restated CPI values to preserve a smoother trend line.
• B. The dashboard can show 1.00 without disclosure because the correction was approved and the revised CPI calculation is mathematically correct.
• C. The dashboard can show 1.00 without disclosure because AC did not change and the milestone was part of the authorized baseline.
• D. The June CPI trend point would be restated from 0.92 to 1.00, so the dashboard should disclose and explain the prior-period correction before using it in trend analysis.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: A prior-period correction may be valid when it is supported by objective evidence and approved through change control, but it still changes the historical data used for trend analysis. The locked June report showed CPI of 0.92 based on EV of USD 9.6 million and AC of USD 10.4 million. Restating June EV by USD 0.8 million changes June CPI to 1.00. That improvement is not a current-period performance recovery; it is a retroactive data correction. A management dashboard that silently replaces the prior value can mislead stakeholders about performance trends, root cause, and forecast credibility. The professional response is to preserve transparency by labeling the restated period and explaining the basis and impact of the correction.

The retroactive EV correction materially changes the reported June CPI, so trend users need the restatement identified and explained.

Question 9

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

During an internal EVMS surveillance review, the project controls lead compares the March customer report with the current data-maintenance log for control account CA-220. Values are cumulative, in USD 000s.

Additional review notes: no approved baseline change applies to March or April, no accounting correction was recorded, and no source progress documentation supports a different March accomplishment value.

Which data-maintenance weakness would most undermine EVMS credibility during review, audit, or customer reporting?

• A. Prior-period PV and EV were overwritten without approved authorization or source evidence, obscuring the historical variance record.
• B. The absence of an approved March or April change means management reserve should be released to the control account.
• C. The actual cost value was retained from the accounting system while the progress and baseline values were updated.
• D. The March report showed unfavorable schedule variance before the recovery plan had been developed.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: EVMS data maintenance must preserve traceability between reported performance, approved baseline changes, accounting corrections, and objective progress evidence. Prior-period corrections can be legitimate when they fix documented errors, but they need approval, a clear audit trail, and disclosure when they affect previously reported results. In this case, March PV and EV were restated to match a recovery plan, not to reflect an approved baseline change or supported progress correction. The restatement also changes the historical variance from unfavorable to favorable or neutral, which can mislead reviewers and customers about what was known at the March status date. That weakens confidence in baseline integrity, earned value credibility, and management reporting transparency.

The exhibit shows an unsupported retroactive restatement of baseline and earned value data that changes previously reported performance history.

Question 10

Topic: Revisions and Data Maintenance

At the September data date, an EV analyst reviews maintenance requests for a control account after the August customer report has already been issued.

Which action best preserves data integrity and management understanding?

• A. Reopen the August report, add the CR-18 budget to June-August PV, and restate cumulative SV without separate disclosure.
• B. Apply the $40,000 cost correction in the current period only and defer CR-18 until enough progress is available to earn the new budget.
• C. Reject retroactive budget spreading; enter CR-18 from September 1, process the approved July cost correction with a prior-period adjustment log, and disclose the effects in the next report.
• D. Use management reserve to offset the prior schedule variance and record CR-18 as a forecast-only EAC adjustment.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Revisions and Data Maintenance

Explanation: Retroactive maintenance must distinguish an approved baseline change from a correction to erroneous historical data. CR-18 is authorized with a September 1 effective date, so spreading its budget into June-August would rewrite the performance measurement baseline before authorization and obscure the variance history. The July actual-cost error is different: an approved journal entry supports a prior-period accounting correction, provided the change is logged with the reason, approval evidence, before-and-after values, and disclosure in the next management report. That approach preserves the audit trail, keeps baseline history understandable, and gives management a clear view of what changed and why.

This keeps the approved change at its authorized effective date while allowing a documented accounting correction with traceable disclosure.

Continue with full practice

Use the AACE EVP Practice Test page for the full PM Mastery practice path, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Related focused pages

• Free AACE EVP Full-Length Practice Exam
• AACE EVP: Organizing
• AACE EVP: Communication Competency
• AACE EVP: Perform Planning and Scheduling Duties
• AACE EVP: Perform Budgeting Duties
• AACE EVP: Account Considerations
• AACE EVP: Analysis and Management Reports

Free review resource

Read the AACE EVP guide on PMExams.com, then return to PM Mastery for timed practice.