When it is broken down to a cost (time) calculation then it might actually become reasonable to invest in a better system for accounting and analyzing expenditures.
How long do you suppose it would take to confirm that it was a part we need, that we don't already have, and that I got a good price on it? And how many such claims do you think each person in the finance department sees each day?
But he isn't being asked to sign that expenses are "essential or too trivial to audit" he has to sign that all expenses are essential.
I'll bite. Our money counters aren't in their right minds, because I submitted a small breakfast tab (at most $10) from work travel for reimbursement, only to learn it was unacceptable to not include a receipt. My other meals had receipts, but I had forgotten to ask for one this time. The accountant then said I had to call the cafe for a receipt. Luckily, the place had a website with contact info, and there was a helpful employee who emailed me the receipt.
But I spent at least an hour talking with the accountant and getting the receipt. The accountant spent probably 30 minutes with this problem. It was a net loss.
Obviously, I work in the government.
It should be a check box on your expense report.
But in general, this is a good point. People are always going to have to accept decisions with incomplete information. The fix for that isn't owning outcomes they don't understand, it's clarifying what they're really doing; in this case, George isn't verifying the necessity but rather that experts have declared the thing necessary.
That's the actual responsible way to do it.