Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p187
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 580511–583917

was chosen, as well as alternatives that may have been considered. The discussions may include, for example:

           * The degree to which the disclosures in the sustainability information are aggregated or disaggregated, and whether the presentation of disclosures obscures useful information, or results in misleading information.

           * Consistency with appropriate industry practice, or whether any departures are relevant to the entity's circumstances and therefore warranted.

Scope Limitation (Ref: Para. 185)

 1.       A scope limitation may arise from:

         1.                 Circumstances beyond the control of the appropriate party(ies). For example, documentation the practitioner considers necessary to inspect may have been accidentally destroyed;

         2.                 Circumstances relating to the nature or timing of the practitioner's work. For example, a physical process the practitioner considers necessary to observe may have occurred before the practitioner's engagement; or

         3.                 Limitations imposed by management, those charged with governance, or the engaging party on the practitioner that, for example, may prevent the practitioner from performing a procedure the practitioner considers to be necessary in the circumstances. Limitations of this kind may have other implications for the engagement, such as for the practitioner's consideration of engagement risk and the acceptance and continuance of the client relationship and the assurance engagement.

 2.       An inability to perform a specific procedure does not constitute a scope limitation if the practitioner is able to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence by performing alternative procedures.

Taking Overall Responsibility for Managing and Achieving Quality (Ref: Para. 186(d)(i))

 1.       Relevant considerations in determining that the engagement leader's involvement has been sufficient and appropriate throughout the engagement to provide a basis for determining that the significant judgements made and conclusions reached are appropriate, given the nature and circumstances of the engagement, include, for example:

         1.                 How consultation on difficult, contentious or other matters has been undertaken and conclusions agreed have been implemented;

         2.                 How differences of opinion have been addressed and resolved; and

         3.                 How the engagement documentation evidences the engagement leader's involvement throughout the engagement.
 1.       Examples of indicators that the engagement leader may not have been sufficiently and appropriately involved:

         * Lack of timely review by the engagement leader of the engagement planning, including reviewing the risk assessment procedures performed.

         * Evidence that those to whom tasks, actions or procedures have been assigned were not adequately informed about the nature of their responsibilities and authority, the scope of the work being assigned and the objectives thereof; and were not provided other necessary instructions and relevant information.

         * A lack of evidence of the engagement leader's direction and supervision of the other members of the engagement team and the review of their work.

 1.       If the engagement leader's involvement does not provide the basis for determining that the significant