Audit Evidence

What Steve was saying is the when evidence is called for, it's not necessary to describe how you would get it. So for example in "For the sample of costs, review purchase invoices and ensure they are in the name of the company to confirm the rights and obligations assertion of the capitalised costs." The audit evidence is "Purchase invoices [noun] in the name of the company ...." it doesn't need to be padded out with verbs/actions "inspect", "agree", etc. You won't be penalised for writing procedures when evidence is called for as long as the procedure "captures" the evidence to be obtained by the procedure. Most amounts in the draft SoFP should agree with (or be reconcilable to) balances on G/L accounts. For example, share capital/premium should agree directly. However, a total for PPE in SoFP cannot be agreed directly because the general ledger will include cost and accumulated deprecation a/cs for each class of asset - so here the make-up of the SOFP needs a schedule and then it is the balances on this schedule that can be agreed to the G/L.

''You won’t be penalised for writing procedures when evidence is called for as long as the procedure “captures” the evidence to be obtained by the procedure." But in the video, it says that starting like a procedure will directly make the points irrelevant and no marks will be awarded?

I know for a fact that actually the marking is not as tough as that - what Steve is suggesting is the "ideal" but as it actually comes down to points of grammar - whether to respond with nouns or verbs - ACCA doesn't penalise candidates for whom English is not their first language. Steve is correct that if starting with an action leads a student to not actually cover what is the evidence, it would not get credit.

It really helps to clarify, thanks a lot!

You're welcome!