Audit Evidence

“(and this time please go easy on me. haha)” – was I not nice to you last time? Sorry 🙁

“I’ve seen this question in every sitting” – this is not quite correct …. sometimes the examiner asks you “what further procedures you would recommend” – and that leads to a big difference in the way that you phrase your points

Instead of “Follow up the enquiry by telephone call” you would have to put “There should be evidence that that matter was chased up by subsequent phone call”

Certainly it’s part of exam technique that, if “you are not sure what to write for the matters to be considered part,” then it’s no good writing nothing. Nothing written = nothing to mark = no marks

I would query the statement “score full marks if you’ve given enough points”

I accept that writing about audit evidence is better than writing nothing but whether it would score full marks I really doubt

“assessing materiality and assessing the risk in the scenario” are certainly points to bring in but you could also bring in to an answer compliance with standards, with law, possibility of going concern problems, the affect of matters on the reader, who ARE the readers, is the company quoted, is the work you carry out just for audit or is it assurance work ….

There’s all sorts of matters to be considered so simply to reduce it to “u can state the audit evidence n score full marks if you’ve given enough points” is too empirical and, almost, insulting to the examiner and the markers

OK?

You’re welcome