Assertions

1. For receivables, after-date cash confirms recoverability of the debt and, subject to confirmation of timing/cut-off of sales transactions, that the debt existed at the reporting date (otherwise why would a customer pay?) Any shortfall in after-date cash might suggest that a receivable is not recoverable (i.e. accuracy and valuation). But for payables, you are searching payments for evidence of of liabilities that have NOT been recorded - for sure, you will find lots of payments that are in settlement of recorded liabilities (existence) but it's the payments that DON'T match a year-end payable that the auditor is most interested in. Consider this - profit will be overstated if: - receivables are overstated ... so you test for existence (direction from recognised in FS to "source"); - payables are understated ... so you test for completeness (direction from "source" to FS).

2. Not only completeness, but accuracy of recording - which is related to valuation - and cut-off.

3. That would be completeness of recording of payment transactions - remember completeness is an assertion that is relevant to classes of transactions and account balances. It is also a test of cut-off - cheques should "clear" the banking system quite quickly - so significant delays should be investigated (e.g. if the cheques were not "in the post" but sitting in a drawer waiting to be sent out to suppliers after the year end). As an assertion, "existence" relates only to account balances. (See notes at the bottom of page 86 of the notes.) The existence of the bank balance is confirmed by a bank report for audit purposes.

4. I would say accuracy and completeness (as you are talking about a transaction).