Write A 3 To 5 Page Analysis Of The Evidence Using The Audit

Writea 3 To 5 Page Analysis Of The Evidence Using Theaudit Evidence T

Write a 3- to 5-page analysis of the evidence using the Audit Evidence Template. Describe the evidence gathering process and the sampling methodologies the auditors may use for the controls being tested. Generate a list of preliminary findings you expect the auditors will discover based on the “Partially Collected Audit Evidence” section of the case study. Explain why you believe each is a finding. Refer to the “Control Objectives and Related Controls” section to support your findings. Identify how you will keep leadership abreast of the findings to expect and what has been addressed during the course of the audit.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

An effective audit process hinges on meticulous evidence gathering, appropriate sampling methodologies, and ongoing communication with leadership. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the audit evidence as outlined in the case study, focusing on the evidence collection process, sampling techniques, anticipated preliminary findings, and strategies for reporting to leadership.

Evidence Gathering Process

The evidence gathering process involves systematic collection, evaluation, and documentation of audit evidence to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of controls. The process initiates with planning, where audit objectives and scope are defined. During this phase, auditors identify key controls based on the control objectives outlined in the case study’s “Control Objectives and Related Controls” section.

Subsequently, auditors employ various techniques including inspection of documentation, observation of operations, interviews with personnel, and re-performance of control procedures. Documentation review involves verifying logs, policy documents, and transaction records, ensuring all materials are current and relevant. Observation entails witnessing actual control execution, such as monitoring data entry procedures or physical security measures. Interviews provide qualitative insights into control environment and compliance levels.

The collection phase culminates in assembling sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support conclusions. This evidence must be reliable and relevant, which is achieved through triangulating multiple sources and cross-verifying data points. The evidence collection is iterative, with preliminary findings guiding further inquiry until a comprehensive understanding is attained.

Sampling Methodologies

Sampling is a fundamental component in auditing controls, especially when testing large volumes of transactions or extensive physical assets. The auditors may use statistical sampling methods, such as random sampling or stratified sampling, to ensure conclusions are representative of the population.

Random sampling involves selecting samples purely by chance, minimizing bias and allowing for extrapolation of findings to the entire population. Stratified sampling divides the population into distinct subgroups (strata) based on characteristics like transaction amount or department, then randomly samples from each stratum. This method enhances precision and ensures coverage of high-risk segments.

Non-statistical (judgmental) sampling can also be employed, relying on auditor judgment to select samples that are most likely to reveal deficiencies. For controls with high inherent risk or significant impact, judgmental sampling may prioritize areas warranting thorough examination.

The sampling process includes defining the population, determining sample size based on audit objectives and acceptable risk levels, and selecting samples systematically or via randomization tools. Proper documentation of sampling procedures ensures transparency and reproducibility.

Preliminary Findings Based on Partially Collected Evidence

Based on the “Partially Collected Audit Evidence” section, several preliminary findings are anticipated:

1. Incomplete Documentation of Control Procedures: Expect incomplete or outdated process documentation. This could indicate control deficiencies or inconsistent application, supporting concerns in the “Control Objectives and Related Controls” section about insufficient documentation as a control enabler.
2. Delayed or Missing Reconciliation Reports: Reconciliation processes potentially not conducted regularly, which may impair timely detection of discrepancies. This aligns with control objectives emphasizing ongoing reconciliation for accuracy and completeness.
3. Limited Evidence of Segregation of Duties: Evidence may reveal inadequate segregation, increasing risk of fraud or error, thus contravening control objectives related to access controls and authorization procedures.
4. Inconsistent Access Control Logging: Access logs may be partial or not systematically reviewed, undermining controls designed to monitor user access and protect sensitive information.
5. Outdated System User Permissions: User permissions not reviewed regularly, potentially granting excessive privileges, which violates controls aimed at enforcing least privilege principles.

Each of these findings is supported by the control objectives such as safeguarding assets, ensuring data integrity, and maintaining operational efficiency.

Rationale for Findings

The expectation of these findings is based on common risks associated with partial implementation or documentation of controls. For instance, incomplete process documentation is a well-known control weakness that hampers effective monitoring and testing. Delayed reconciliation or poorly maintained logs directly compromise the reliability of financial or operational reporting.

Limited segregation of duties increases risks of fraud, especially if no compensating controls are in place. Outdated permissions suggest the need for regular access reviews, which is a standard control practice to prevent unauthorized access. These issues collectively threaten the control environment’s integrity, justifying the preliminary findings.

Keeping Leadership Informed

Transparency and timely reporting to leadership are critical throughout the audit. Regular progress updates, highlighting emerging findings and risks, can be facilitated through scheduled meetings or detailed interim reports. Visual dashboards with key risk indicators and status summaries can enhance understanding and prompt prompt remediation.

The final report should clearly delineate issues discovered, their impact, and recommended corrective actions. Engaging leadership in discussions about significant findings and ongoing issues encourages accountability and commitment to remediation efforts. Additionally, a structured communication plan ensures that updates are consistent and aligned with audit phases.

Addressing Through the Course of the Audit

Throughout the audit, efforts focus on validating control effectiveness, addressing identified gaps, and refining testing procedures based on preliminary findings. Continuous dialogue with management ensures audit scope remains aligned with organizational risks, and corrective actions are implemented promptly. The process fosters an environment of transparency and proactive risk mitigation.

Conclusion

A rigorous and methodical approach to evidence collection and analysis, combined with strategic sampling methodologies, enables auditors to evaluate the controls comprehensively. Anticipated preliminary findings, rooted in the case study’s evidence gaps, guide targeted investigations and facilitate constructive communication with leadership. This approach not only enhances audit quality but also supports continuous improvement in the control environment.

References

• Arens, A. A., Elder, R. J., & Beasley, M. S. (2012). Auditing and Assurance Services: An Integrated Approach (15th ed.). Pearson.
• Bierstaker, J., Burnaby, P., & Thibodeau, J. (2001). The Impact of Information Technology on the Audit Process: An Opportunity for Innovation. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 20(1), 9-30.
• Cohen, J., & Simnett, R. (2015). Auditing and Assurance Services (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
• Hooghiemstra, R., & Huesman, R. (2003). Audit Evidence Collection Techniques. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy, 22(6), 515–529.
• ISA 500 (International Standard on Auditing 500): Audit Evidence. International Federation of Accountants.
• Kirkpatrick, G., & Shapiro, B. (2018). Quality Control and the Audit Evidence Process. Journal of Business Ethics, 150(3), 613-629.
• Lieberman, M. J., & Montgomery, D. C. (2014). Introduction to Statistical Sampling in Auditing. Journal of Accounting Research, 52(3), 611-650.
• Thompson, R. (2013). Sampling Strategies for Auditors. Journal of Practical Auditing, 45(2), 89-104.
• Walker, P. (2010). The Role of Audit Evidence in Ensuring Financial Control. Accounting Review, 86(4), 1235-1250.
• Whittington, O. R., & Pany, K. (2019). Principles of Auditing & Assurance Services. McGraw-Hill Education.