Difference between Emphasis of Matter (EOM) and KEY Audit Matter(KAM)?

My understanding is that:- When evidence exist on a material misstatement - include an ROM When there is NO evidence on a material misatement but in auditors professional judgement it's significant - then include a KAM ( if so:- my confussion if no evidence exist in a material misstatement wouldn't it be a disclaimer of opinion, and if a disclaimer then no inclusion of KAMis allowed.) Please help I am really confused....

Include a EOM (not ROM )

No evidence? Pervasive? Disclaimer and no KAM Evidence? Material (not pervasive)? Modified opinion Not material? Significant? KAM I think that does it OK?

Dear Sir, I think "material" and "significant" should have the same meaning in this context ? If an auditor considered a matter to be "significant", it implies that it is "material" as well. Or "material" and "significant" indeed have different meaning in this context ? I am still quite confused between Key Audit Matter (KAM) and Emphasis of Matter (EoM) Let's say, the auditor has determined the fair value measurement of a financial instrument, which involved subjective management judgment and has been communicated with those charged with governance (TCWG), a significant matter that needs to be highlighted to shareholders. Let's say, there is no misstatement found regarding the valuation of that financial instrument so the opinion is unmodified. It just needs to be highlighted to shareholders. Now, do the auditor put it in KAM or EoM ?

(1). I Also didnt get the Difference between Emphasis of Matter (EOM) and KEY Audit Matter(KAM) frim what you explained AND WHEN appropriate to use them Sir ? Also (2.) When is it appropriate to use Emphasis of Matter or Material Uncertainty going concern in the audit report ( can they both be written in the audit report)? (3.) From your explanation above, please can you also explain the difference between MATERIAL & SIGNIFICANT? and if possible an example for better understanding.?

As something can be Material in Number and Material by Nature. And if Material by Nature, shouldn't it be significant to Auditors?

Duc Hung No, they don't have the same meaning (and that's why it's important that you restrict your input to asking questions on this particular forum. If you wish to join in giving advice, please don't do so on this forum but use the general forum by all means) In answer to your question, KAM

Neka, have you read the TWO articles specifically on this subject of the new audit report? Yes, both may be used but not for the same issue. It's perfectly possible to have a material uncertainty re going concern AND some matter that needs to be emphasised. Something can be significant in that it has caused the auditor to devote substantial attention to the matter, but it need not be material Yes, material by nature could very well be significant, but that doesn't necessarily lead to a modification of the audit opinion OK?

Ok. Thank you for taking the time to reply back.

Let me know, when you've read those two articles, if you're still stuck OK?

I actually have read it. Wasn't clear to me. Hence needing your assistance.

Cant help but to comment on this thread. So much confusion, for me. How I understand the nature between the two is this. 1) EOM is related to the opinion expressed by the auditor for the audited account. 2) KAM is required to be included in the audited report for a public entity, regardless of the opinion expressed by the auditor. If you talk about similarity between this two, its simply highlighting the risk of the business to the user of the account. Am i wrong?

The KAM is there to indicate to current users those matters that were of greater significance for the auditor and that therefore deserved (and got!) extra attention If that's what you meant, yes, that's correct OK.