Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p163
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 508347–511608

the entity's IT general controls (in particular, change controls), may also provide substantial evidence about its operating effectiveness.

 2.       In certain circumstances, evidence obtained from previous engagements may provide evidence for the current engagement when the practitioner performs procedures to establish its continuing relevance. For example, in performing a previous engagement, the practitioner may have determined that an automated control was functioning as intended. The practitioner may obtain evidence to determine whether changes to the automated control have been made that affect its continued effective functioning through, for example, enquiries of management and the inspection of logs to indicate what controls have been changed. Consideration of evidence about these changes may support either increasing or decreasing the expected evidence to be obtained in the current period about the operating effectiveness of the controls.

 3.       In most cases, evidence from a previous engagement's substantive procedures provides little or no evidence for the current period. However, it may be appropriate to use evidence from a previous engagement's substantive procedures if that evidence and the related subject matter have not fundamentally changed, and procedures have been performed during the current period to establish its continuing relevance.

Substantive Procedures (Ref: Para. 140R)

A440R. The practitioner's understanding of the entity's process to identify sustainability information to be reported may indicate that certain disclosures include information that is likely to be of particular importance to intended users (see also paragraphs A285–A287 regarding the grouping of disclosures for purposes of planning and performing the engagement). However, the practitioner may determine that the risks of material misstatement for those disclosures are at an acceptably low level. In these circumstances, due to the importance of that information to intended users, paragraph 140R requires the practitioner to consider the need to design and perform substantive procedures on those disclosures. The need to perform substantive procedures, and the extent of such procedures, is a matter of professional judgement in the circumstances. In addition, the practitioner is not expected to design and perform substantive procedures for all disclosures. Rather, the substantive procedures may focus on the disclosures, or the information within those disclosures, that is expected to be of particular importance to intended users.

A441R. The consideration of the need to design and perform substantive procedures for these disclosures reflects that:

           * The practitioner's assessment of the risks of material misstatement is judgemental.

           * There are inherent limitations in internal control, including the possibility of management override. Therefore, for example, the practitioner may determine that testing the operating effectiveness of controls may need to be supplemented with limited tests of details.

External Confirmation Procedures (Ref: Para. 141R)

     1.

     2.

 3.       The practitioner may consider performing confirmation procedures to request information regarding assertions,