Auditor's Response Vs Substantive Procedures

That is a very good question Cindy. There are similarities, but they are not exactly the same.
This is what the examiner writes (in just about every examiner’s report): “Auditor’s responses still continue to be weak and while an auditor’s response does not have to be a detailed audit procedure, rather an approach the audit team will take to address the identified risk.”

So the things to remember are – it’s an auditor’s response (not management’s) and it’s a response to the assessed risk – so it has to be clearly linked to the risk you have identified. These are good examples:
“Increase cut-off testing on sales invoices to confirm that revenue is recorded in the correct period and is not overstated.”
“Extend examination of after-date cash receipts to assess the recoverability of receivables.”
They don’t describe how to do a cut-off test or examine after-date cash (or attend an inventory count/obtain external confirmation, etc) – they point to the approach which you can try to think of in terms or “nature (substantive), timing (most likely year-end/final audit) and extent (most likely more rather than less)”.

For some risks of misstatement you will need more information in order to respond. So, for example, a response “Confirm the reasonableness of assumptions and calculations” is incomplete if you don’t yet have the assumptions and calculations. That is why you will see also in the model answers “Discuss with management ….” and “Obtain a breakdown …”.

You’re very welcome!