ACCT3002 Chap.7 Audit Evidence Mix

Not automatically. Quantity may improve sufficiency, but documents that are irrelevant to the assertion or generated by an unreliable system may remain weak. Improve the source, procedure or corroboration rather than counting more copies of the same limitation.

Yes, when the auditor develops a reliable expectation, defines an acceptable difference and investigates significant deviations. A surprising ratio by itself is a risk signal. The explanation and corroborating work determine whether the procedure supports a conclusion.

It responds to inherent risk, control risk, control-test results and new findings. Strong tested controls can carry more weight. High risk, failed controls or contradictory evidence shift work toward persuasive substantive procedures and closer year-end testing.

Start with the assertion and the specific error that could occur. Judge relevance first: a customer confirmation may support existence but say little about collectability, while later cash can support valuation for the amount received but may not reveal an omitted customer.

Then assess reliability through independence, auditor control over the procedure, document integrity and the effectiveness of the system producing internal information. Combine sources when their limitations differ. Inquiry explains, observation shows performance at a moment, inspection preserves a record, recalculation checks arithmetic, and reperformance tests the process directly.

State what inconsistency would require follow-up. Evidence quantity cannot cure a source that addresses the wrong claim, and a single persuasive item may still leave another assertion untouched.

Higher assessed risk calls for a response in all three dimensions, not merely a bigger sample. Nature can shift toward independent external evidence, auditor reperformance, more targeted selections or procedures that directly test the vulnerable assertion. Timing can move from an interim date toward year end, with roll-forward work where earlier testing remains necessary.

Extent can increase through more items, broader locations or deeper examination of unusual transactions. Consider staff experience, supervision and unpredictability as part of the design. If tested controls operate effectively, some substantive work may be adjusted, but the basis for reliance must be explicit.

If controls fail or system-generated information is unreliable, redirect the plan and validate the populations used for substantive procedures.

Compare relevance to the assertion, independence of the source, control over preparation, document integrity and how directly the auditor obtained the result. Then identify what each item cannot establish. A confirmation and later cash receipt may reinforce existence, while recoverability still needs evidence about disputes and credit conditions.

The strongest comparison does not rank sources in the abstract; it explains why their combined strengths address the particular misstatement and what follow-up resolves inconsistency.