Agoing‐concern judgment is an important classification of a client that auditors are called upon to render. We study the collective group process of interpretation that auditors are engaged in by examining their individual interpretation processes and their interactions among themselves and with clients. The interpretation process leading to the going‐concern judgment involves four phases: (1) recognizing any potential going‐concern problems, (2) understanding the cause of those problems, (3) evaluating client plans to mitigate those problems, and (4) rendering a going‐concern judgment. We capture the process underlying a going‐concern judgment by representing thecontentandprocessof the interactions using an argumentation language.