Document ID: chunk:federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107:front:0:p108
Version: federal_register_of_legislation:F2025L00107
Segment Type: other
Provision Reference: 
Character Range: 345165–348251

assessment of the risks of material misstatement at the assertion level for those disclosures (the higher the assessed risks, the more evidence is likely to be required).

A235L. For limited assurance engagements, the quantity of evidence needed is affected by the nature and number of disclosures and the assessment of the risks of material misstatement at the disclosure level. As explained in paragraph A209L, the procedures in a limited assurance engagement vary in nature and timing and are lesser in extent than for a reasonable assurance engagement but are, nonetheless, planned to obtain a level of assurance that is meaningful. The sufficiency of evidence is evaluated in that context.

     1.

     2.

 3.       The appropriateness of evidence refers to its quality. The quality of evidence depends on the relevance and reliability of the information intended to be used as evidence as well as the effectiveness of the design of the assurance procedures and the practitioner's application of those procedures. Information that is more relevant and reliable ordinarily is of a higher quality and, therefore, may provide more persuasive evidence. If the evidence is more persuasive, the practitioner may determine that the evidence is sufficient in providing support for the practitioner's conclusions. Alternatively, when evidence is less persuasive, the practitioner may determine that additional evidence is needed. However, increasing the quantity of evidence by performing the same type of procedures may not provide more persuasive evidence in all circumstances.

 4.       The practitioner uses professional judgement and exercises professional scepticism in evaluating the sufficiency and appropriateness of evidence to support the assurance conclusion.

 5.       Factors that affect the evidence that may be available in the circumstances, in terms of quantity or quality, and therefore impact its sufficiency or appropriateness, include the following:

           * The characteristics of the sustainability matters or disclosures. For example, less objective evidence might be expected when the disclosures are forward-looking rather than historical.

           * Whether the source of the information used to prepare the disclosures is accessible. For example, if the criteria require the sustainability information to include information from value chain entities outside of the entity's control, there may be limitations on access to such information or to the work of another practitioner that may have provided an assurance report on such information. Such limitations may also affect the practitioner's evaluation of the relevance and reliability of this information intended to be used as evidence (see also paragraphs A236 and A252).

           * Other circumstances, such as when evidence that could reasonably be expected to exist is not available because of factors such as those described in paragraph A204.

 1.       The procedures designed and performed by the practitioner may also affect the persuasiveness of the evidence obtained. For example,