Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C01116:body:0:p18
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2023C01116
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 50306–53544

documentation relating to significant matters[13] and significant judgements, including those relating to difficult or contentious matters identified during the engagement, and the conclusions reached.

A36.         For audits of a financial report, ASA 220 [14] provides examples of significant judgements that may be identified by the engagement partner related to the overall audit strategy and audit plan for undertaking the engagement, the execution of the engagement and the overall conclusions reached by the engagement team.

A37.         For engagements other than audits of a financial report, the significant judgements made by the engagement team may depend on the nature and circumstances of the engagement or the entity. For example, in an assurance engagement performed in accordance with ASAE 3000, the engagement team's determination of whether the criteria to be applied in the preparation of the subject matter information are suitable for the engagement may involve or require significant judgement.

A38.         In performing the engagement quality review, the engagement quality reviewer may become aware of other areas where significant judgements would have been expected to be made by the engagement team for which further information may be needed about the engagement team's procedures performed or the basis for conclusions reached. In those circumstances, discussions with the engagement quality reviewer may result in the engagement team concluding that additional procedures need to be performed.

A39.         The information obtained in accordance with paragraphs 25(a) and 25(b), and the review of selected engagement documentation, assists the engagement quality reviewer in evaluating the engagement team's basis for making the significant judgements. Other considerations that may be relevant to the engagement quality reviewer's evaluation include, for example:

           * Remaining alert to changes in the nature and circumstances of the engagement or the entity that may result in changes in the significant judgements made by the engagement team;

           * Applying an unbiased view in evaluating responses from the engagement team; and

           * Following up on inconsistencies identified in reviewing engagement documentation, or inconsistent responses by the engagement team to questions relating to the significant judgements made.

A40.         The firm's policies or procedures may specify engagement documentation to be reviewed by the engagement quality reviewer. In addition, such policies or procedures may indicate that the engagement quality reviewer exercises professional judgement in selecting additional engagement documentation to be reviewed relating to significant judgements made by the engagement team.

A41.         Discussions about significant judgements with the engagement partner, and if applicable, other members of the engagement team, together with the engagement team's documentation, may assist the engagement quality reviewer in evaluating the exercise of professional scepticism, when applicable to the engagement, by the engagement team in relation to those significant judgements.

A42.         For audits of a financial report, ASA 220[15] provides