Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p184
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 571197–574575

the effect of identified misstatements on the engagement and of uncorrected misstatements, if any, on the sustainability information.

           * The practitioner's responsibilities relating to subsequent events.

Forming the Assurance Conclusion

Evaluating the Evidence Obtained (Ref: Para. 178)

 1.       An assurance engagement is an iterative process, and information may come to the practitioner's attention that differs significantly from that on which the determination of planned procedures was based. This may particularly be the case when the entity's information system is less mature or when the disclosures, and their characteristics, are subject to greater judgement. As the practitioner performs planned procedures, the evidence obtained may cause the practitioner to perform additional procedures to meet the intended purpose(s) in performing those procedures. In some circumstances, the practitioner may not have obtained the evidence that the practitioner had expected to obtain through the planned procedures. When the practitioner determines that the evidence obtained from the procedures performed is not sufficient and appropriate to be able to form a conclusion on the sustainability information, the practitioner may:

         1.                 Extend the work performed; or

         2.                 Perform other procedures judged by the practitioner to be necessary in the circumstances.

When neither of these is practicable in the circumstances, the practitioner will not be able to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to be able to form a conclusion.

 1.       A procedure may be designed to be effective in achieving an intended purpose, but if the performance or execution of the procedure (i.e., its application) is inappropriate the purpose of the procedure may not be met. Paragraphs 31–63 address the specific responsibilities of the practitioner regarding quality management at the engagement level, and the related responsibilities of the engagement leader, which may affect the application of procedures. In addition, paragraph A116 explains that the review of the engagement team's work consists of considering whether, for example:

         1.                 The evidence obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for the practitioner's assurance conclusion; and

         2.                 The objectives of the procedures have been achieved.

 2.       The practitioner's professional judgement as to what constitutes sufficient appropriate evidence is influenced by such factors as the following:

           * Significance of a potential misstatement and the likelihood of it having a material effect, individually or when aggregated with other potential misstatements, on the sustainability information.

           * Effectiveness of management or those charged with governance's responses to address the known risk of material misstatement.

           * Experience gained during previous assurance engagements with respect to similar potential misstatements.

           * Results of procedures performed, including whether such procedures identified specific misstatements.

           * Source and reliability of the available information.

           * Persuasiveness of the evidence.

           * Understanding of the entity and its environment.

 1.       The evaluation of evidence obtained