Exploratory expert panel demonstrates high demand for documentation in digital revenue recognition, highlighting that automated tools cannot replace professional human judgment.
This study develops an analytical framework for professional accounting judgment in recognizing revenue from contracts with customers in the context of digitalization and artificial intelligence. The research gap concerns the limited integration of specific IFRS 15 judgment areas, digitally assisted contract analysis, professional approval, and control traceability. The framework is designed as a systems-based decision-support structure that links IFRS 15 criteria, relevant contractual terms and circumstances, technological support, professional accounting judgment, and audit traceability. It does not replace the standard’s five-step model. The methodological design comprises three components: normative analysis, structured illustrative scenario analysis, and a single-round exploratory expert-panel assessment. The illustrative scenarios are based on generalized recurring situations from Bulgarian accounting practice. The panel included 26 specialists in financial reporting, auditing, financial control, and accounting information systems. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and complementary indicators of internal consistency and ranking concordance. The results indicate favorable evaluations of terminological compatibility with IFRS 15, alignment with the five-step model, and documentation of professional accounting judgment. Documentation received the highest mean score (4.77), whereas digitally assisted analysis (4.12) and the constraint on variable consideration (4.19) received more moderate scores. These results indicate that system-generated outputs require clear professional justification, approval, and a traceable control record. The scientific contribution is a four-component framework comprising normative, contractual-analytical, technological, and control levels. It organizes digitally assisted revenue recognition while keeping professional accounting judgment central.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Luchkov et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: