This isn't true, is it? This event gets raised in the calling process when the function is called (the idea is that an audit hook can abort the operation from ever starting, though we don't actively encourage it).

The current text suggests that it's raised asynchronously. Probably the default text here is fine for describing this event - it's the event below that needs better explanation.

This can probably be clearer. It seems the important part is that it's raised in the remote process (the second "in the remote process" is ambiguous - it could refer to the path or the raise).

The default text is no good here, but perhaps this should be:

Before the remote Python process begins executing a script invoked
by this function, an :ref:`auditing event <auditing>`
``cpython.remote_debugger_script`` is raised with the path of the script.
This event is raised in the remote process, not the one that called
*remote_exec*.

A better way to structure this test would be to print the event info and also print the expected info before calling it, then compare the two lines in the actual test function.

That way if it doesn't match, we've captured the actual values, which are going to be the best hint about what's wrong and how to fix it. Right now, we only get a "pass/fail" reported, and if there's no way to reproduce the issue outside of tests, we'll have to update the test to get enough info to fix it. May as well start by ensuring the info makes it into the test itself, rather than simply failing in the subprocess.

Since we're calling ourselves, we can also capture cpython.remote_debugger_script here and validate both events with the same test.