Audit Evidence, Working Papers and Audit Procedures
Evidence quality
Candidates must know the attributes of evidence: sufficiency (quantity) and appropriateness (relevance and reliability). Reliability hierarchy: evidence from independent external sources is more reliable than internal; documentary more reliable than oral; original more reliable than copies; direct observation and inspection more reliable than inquiry alone. Evidence must be documented, cross-referenced and retained. Audit procedures include inspection, observation, inquiry, confirmation, recalculation, re-performance and analytical procedures.
Working papers
Working papers must be complete, accurate, clear, legible and timely; they support conclusions and demonstrate conformance with standards. They should record the work performed, evidence obtained, findings, conclusions and reviewer sign-off. Retention follows statutory and organisational requirements.
Traps
A frequent trap: treating management representations as sufficient evidence on their own - inquiry alone is rarely sufficient. Another: confusing sufficiency with appropriateness. Questions may also test that evidence must support the conclusion, not merely be collected; and that working papers are the property of the organisation, subject to confidentiality and legal access rules.
Rule of thumb
Ask: is there enough (sufficiency) and is it the right kind (appropriateness)? Corroborate oral evidence with documentary evidence before concluding.
Worked example
An auditor is told by a procurement officer that all contracts were competitively tendered. Inquiry alone is insufficient; the auditor inspects the contract files, confirms with the registry, and performs analytical comparison of contract values to thresholds before concluding.