Is it necessary to require staff to build a separate workpaper (e.g., Excel spreadsheet) when reviewing tax returns, especially for simple 1040s?

One member questioned the value of an extra workpaper step for relatively simple 1040s, arguing that tying source documents directly to the software should be sufficient rather than adding a middle step of tying source documents to a workpaper and the workpaper to the software — noting this practice is often inherited from 'the firm you worked at said you had to' rather than justified by need. Another member pushed back based on experience: they held the same view for over two decades until needing to scale up with additional preparers and reviewers. They found that having preparers enter data (from tools like Grunt Works handling W-2s, 1099s, K-1s) into a simple Excel worksheet allowed staff to self-review before it reached another reviewer, and also provided useful year-over-year comparisons (e.g., noticing a brokerage statement's interest income disappeared). It was also noted this practice was sometimes applied narrowly, only for things like Schedule D with many brokerage statements, so a reviewer could scan a spreadsheet instead of underlying statements — though a lingering concern was that manual re-entry into the workpaper introduces its own risk of transcription error. The group's general takeaway: question the ROI of each workflow step, and if there's a genuine ROI (like enabling self-review or scaling with staff), keep it; if not, cut it. It was also suggested AI could potentially generate the worksheet automatically from uploaded documents, reducing the redundant data-entry concern, though this specific use case wasn't fully tested by the group in this discussion.