Evidence - reliability when sources differ

Welcome to my forum! This is a good Q - I have renamed it to be more helpful to other students using the search function for posts. The general rules are: - external source is more reliable than internal; - auditor-obtained ("direct") is more reliable than indirect (e.g. via the client); and - written is more reliable than oral. Evidence about the same assertion would therefore go like this - from most reliable (best to worst): - Auditor-obtained/generated - 3rd party (e.g. external confirmation) - Internal written - Oral BUT if they differ, as it says in the Study Hub text "Any inconsistency creates doubt (leading to further work) until resolved." So in the case you give, the auditor would have to be satisfied that there was an error in the bank's confimation (for example) before concluding.