Experienced Writers: What Went Wrong During the CFE?

(Posted December 2025)

For experienced writers, writing the CFE again is both familiar and challenging. You have been through the process before, you know the structure, and you may even feel more prepared. Yet many still find themselves short of a pass. If this was your experience, it is worth reflecting honestly on what went wrong so you can make targeted changes before your next attempt.

Overconfidence in Preparation

One common pitfall is assuming that prior experience alone will carry you through. Even if you passed on most levels in your prior attempt and only failed on one, the reality is that you must pass those levels again on your next sitting. Nothing carries forward. Experienced writers often recognize the format but underestimate how quickly technical skills fade or how much effort is still required to maintain case-writing sharpness. The CFE is not just a test of knowledge—it is a test of applying knowledge under pressure. Walking in with the mindset of “I have seen this before” can lead to complacency and insufficient practice.

Weak Debriefing Habits

Experienced writers often put in the hours writing case after case, but the real learning comes from the debrief. Simply producing responses without understanding why you didn’t score higher—or what the root cause of those weaknesses was—limits growth and leads to repeating the same mistakes. The key questions are not “Did I write enough?” but rather “What held me back?” and “What will I do differently on the next case?” If your debriefing was rushed or incomplete, you likely carried the same issues from practice into the exam, preventing the improvement needed to move from Reaching Competence to Competent.

Lack of Specificity in Responses

Another recurring issue is generic writing. Many experienced writers know the technical, but they fail to ground their responses in the case. Markers consistently note that vague statements like “revenue should be recognized when risks transfer” are not sufficient without linking to the actual contract terms, amounts, or timing given in the case. Without specificity, it is impossible to score Competent, even if your technical recall is strong.

Generic audit procedures are another common weakness for the CFE Day 2 Assurance role. To pass Level 3 (depth in your role-specific requireds), it is not enough to list broad procedures—you must write specific steps that address the unique risks presented in the case and explain what supporting documentation you need and what you will do with it. Developing the skill of tailoring procedures to the facts is essential for showing depth in your elected role and moving from Reaching Competence to Competent.

Not Adapting to the Case

Each CFE is different. A frequent mistake is to rely on memorized templates or prior exam strategies without adapting to the unique setting of the new case. Experienced writers may default to canned approaches for control weaknesses, tax issues, or strategy recommendations, but the exam tests your ability to adapt. If your response does not reflect the specific facts in the case, it will not demonstrate depth —even if the technical content is accurate in general.

Time Management and Prioritization

Even when you know what to do, execution under time pressure is critical. Experienced writers sometimes carry over poor habits from their first attempt—writing longer than the suggested time, spending too long on one issue, leaving other requireds untouched, or failing to balance depth with breadth. The result can be missing sufficiency or breadth despite strong technical knowledge. Successful candidates demonstrate discipline: moving on when their allocated writing time is up and ensuring they address all requireds.

Skipping Technical Refresh

It can be tempting to focus entirely on case-writing practice, especially if you felt your first attempt was “close.” But without a solid technical refresh, gaps inevitably surface in breadth areas like Financial Reporting, Taxation, Finance, or Management Accounting. Make sure you dedicate time to review technical before your CFE study leave. That period should be spent sharpening your case-writing skills, not relearning fundamentals. Having technical fresh in your mind will not only strengthen your responses but also give you a confidence boost when you start practicing cases again.

Understanding Where the Fail Happened

It is critical to pinpoint what went wrong and where you fell short—whether it was Day 1, or one of the four evaluation levels (sufficiency, depth in FR/MA, depth in role, or breadth) for Day 2 and 3. Without this clarity, you risk going into your next attempt blind to the issues that need fixing.

If you failed at more than one level, we recommend requesting a Performance Analysis Report (PAR), which is usually available in May for the prior September CFE. The PAR provides detailed insight into your performance, highlighting where you did not meet the standard and where you were stronger. Having your PAR analyzed by us at Densmore can help you identify the specific issues that held you back and develop a plan to address them. Entering your study period aware of your weaknesses and with a targeted plan in place gives you the best chance of success on your next attempt.

Moving Forward

If you are rewriting the CFE, the most important step is to identify which of these issues applied to you and to make deliberate changes for your next attempt. Review your results and be honest about what went wrong.

The CFE is passable, but it requires growth. As an experienced writer, your advantage is knowing the structure and the stakes. Use that knowledge to refine your process, correct your past mistakes, and approach your next sitting with a sharper strategy.