The PCAOB standard-setting agenda carries a set of short-term projects, and for the first time the Board is asking the public to weigh in on those priorities directly. On June 23, 2026, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board issued a Request for Public Comment on its standard-setting and research agendas, with comments due August 7, 2026. The short-term projects the Office of the Chief Auditor has identified for potential Board action within roughly 12 months include Other Auditors, Quality Control, Noncompliance with Laws and Regulations (NOCLAR), an Attestation Standards Update, Going Concern, and Confirmations, and the agenda itself may change as a result of this comment process. For companies and audit committees, this matters because these projects shape what your auditor must do, how long the audit takes, and what the audit ultimately costs.
This is a different development from the Board’s earlier 2025 moves to withdraw the firm and engagement metrics rules and to reconsider the QC 1000 quality control standard. Here, the PCAOB is opening its forward-looking priorities to input rather than pulling back a completed rule. Below we break down what is on the agenda, how the process works, and where stakeholders can make their voices count.
Why the 2026 Comment Request Is a First
The PCAOB has published standard-setting and research agendas for years, but it has never before invited the public to comment on those agendas as a whole. In its June 23, 2026 release, the Board stated that this is the first time it has issued a request for comment on its standard-setting and research agendas, as well as the first time it has asked for feedback on its overall standard-setting process.
That framing is significant. Standard setting has historically been a staff-driven exercise, with public input arriving only after the Board proposed a specific standard. Opening the agenda itself to comment gives preparers, investors, audit committees, and firms a chance to influence which projects advance and in what order, before drafting begins.
The request builds on the standard-setting questions the PCAOB included in its Strategic Priorities Request for Comment earlier in 2026. It also asks stakeholders to consider the potential effect of the SEC’s proposal on semiannual reporting on the PCAOB’s suite of standards. In short, the Board is trying to align its agenda with a broader strategic planning effort and with regulatory changes happening around it.
What Is on the PCAOB Standard-Setting Agenda for 2026
The Office of the Chief Auditor has organized its standard-setting, research, and rulemaking projects into short-term and mid-term buckets. Short-term projects are those where the Board expects to act within roughly the coming 12 months. The Board describes these agendas as dynamic, and the current comment process could reshape which projects advance and on what timeline.
Short-Term Projects
The short-term standard-setting projects the Board has identified include:
- Other Auditors. Continued work on the standards that govern how a lead auditor supervises and uses the work of other auditors, including firms in different jurisdictions.
- Quality Control. Consideration of targeted changes to the firm quality control framework. This connects to the Board’s ongoing reconsideration of QC 1000, which we compare against the AICPA’s quality standards in our QC 1000 versus SQMS guide.
- NOCLAR (AS 2405). A renewed look at Auditing Standard 2405, Illegal Acts by Clients, reconsidering the feedback the Board received on its 2023 proposal through comment letters and a roundtable.
- Attestation Standards Update. Modernization of the attestation standards that apply to engagements outside a traditional financial statement audit.
- Going Concern. A project addressing how auditors evaluate and report on an entity’s ability to continue as a going concern.
- Confirmations. Continued attention to the standard governing external confirmations, a core audit evidence procedure.
Mid-Term Projects
The mid-term agenda includes Substantive Analytical Procedures, Fraud, Interim Ethics and Independence Standards, and Interim Standards. These are areas the Board intends to study and potentially advance on a longer timeline. The research agenda also carries a Data and Technology project examining the audit-quality impact of tools such as artificial intelligence.
The NOCLAR and going concern items deserve close attention from audit committees. Both touch directly on how auditors respond when something goes wrong at a company, and changes there can reshape the scope of the auditor’s responsibilities and the conversations that reach the audit committee.
Why the Comment Request Matters to Companies and Audit Committees
Auditing standards are not abstract. They determine the procedures your external auditor performs, the evidence they gather, and the questions they bring to management and the audit committee. When the PCAOB changes a standard, the ripple effects reach the finance function, the audit fee, and the audit timeline.
A NOCLAR standard, for example, governs how auditors identify and respond to a client’s noncompliance with laws and regulations. A more expansive version could require auditors to design procedures specifically aimed at detecting illegal acts, which would increase both the work performed and the interactions with legal and compliance teams. Audit committees would need to prepare for more frequent and more detailed reporting.
Going concern is another area with direct board-level consequences. If the auditor’s evaluation framework changes, companies operating with tight liquidity or covenant pressure may face different disclosure and documentation expectations. The audit committee is the body that oversees these judgments, so shifts in the standard change what the committee must monitor.
The Confirmations project is a further example of how technical standard setting reaches operations. Confirmations are a routine but resource-intensive procedure, and changes to how auditors obtain and evaluate them can affect the cadence of requests sent to banks, customers, and counterparties. Finance teams that respond to those requests feel the impact directly.
Because the agenda is now open to comment, companies and audit committees have a rare opportunity to signal which projects would improve audit quality without imposing disproportionate cost, and which could create burden with little benefit. Waiting until a specific standard is proposed means commenting after the Board has already committed to a direction. Commenting on the agenda lets stakeholders influence the direction itself.
Investors have an interest here too. Auditing standards underpin the reliability of the financial statements the market depends on, so the balance the Board strikes between rigor and cost affects confidence in public company reporting. That is part of why opening the agenda to a wider set of voices is a meaningful procedural change rather than a routine administrative step.
How to Prepare and Respond
Audit committees and finance leaders do not need to become standard-setting experts to participate meaningfully. A focused review of the agenda is enough to identify the projects most relevant to your company’s risk profile.
Start by mapping the short-term projects against your own audit. If your company relies heavily on external confirmations, the Confirmations project is worth watching. If you operate across borders with component auditors, the Other Auditors project may affect your engagement structure. If liquidity is a live concern, follow Going Concern closely.
Comments were due August 7, 2026, so the formal window for this particular request may have closed by the time you read this. Even so, the PCAOB’s shift toward soliciting agenda-level input signals more opportunities ahead. Companies should build a habit of monitoring the Board’s agenda and coordinating with their external auditor and advisors when a relevant project advances to a formal proposal.
Working with an audit team that tracks these developments helps you anticipate change rather than react to it. Our audit and assurance professionals monitor PCAOB rulemaking so clients understand how emerging standards could affect their engagements and their audit committees.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the PCAOB standard-setting agenda?
The PCAOB standard-setting agenda is the Board’s published list of auditing standards it is developing or reconsidering. It is organized into short-term projects, where Board action is expected within roughly 12 months, and mid-term projects on a longer horizon. A separate research agenda covers areas the Board is still studying.
When did the PCAOB request public comment on its 2026 agenda?
The PCAOB issued its Request for Public Comment on its standard-setting and research agendas on June 23, 2026, with a comment deadline of August 7, 2026. The Board described this as the first time it has ever sought public input on the agendas themselves and on its overall standard-setting process.
What are the short-term projects on the 2026 agenda?
The short-term standard-setting projects the Board has identified include Other Auditors, Quality Control, NOCLAR (Auditing Standard 2405), an Attestation Standards Update, Going Concern, and Confirmations, which the Office of the Chief Auditor expects to take up within about 12 months. Because the agenda is dynamic and now open to comment, the specific projects and their timing may change.
How is this different from the PCAOB withdrawing metrics and pausing QC 1000?
The 2025 actions to withdraw the firm and engagement metrics rules and to reconsider the QC 1000 quality control standard involved rolling back or revisiting completed rulemaking. The 2026 comment request is forward-looking, inviting input on which future projects the Board should prioritize before drafting begins.
Why should audit committees care about the standard-setting agenda?
Auditing standards define the procedures the external auditor performs and the matters that reach the audit committee. Changes to projects like NOCLAR and Going Concern can expand the auditor’s responsibilities, affect audit scope and cost, and change what the committee must oversee, so early awareness helps committees prepare.
Can companies still influence the PCAOB’s priorities?
The formal comment window for this specific request closed August 7, 2026. However, the PCAOB’s decision to solicit agenda-level input signals a more open process going forward. Companies can continue to monitor the Board’s agenda and comment when relevant projects reach the formal proposal stage.
