Explorer

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the standalone selling prices that the issuer established. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to change management: · The firm selected for testing certain controls over change management for these IT systems but did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing because it limited its procedures to testing the completeness of only one type of change. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed the revenue area but did not identify the deficiency below. The firm's substantive procedures to test two types of revenue and the deferred revenue related to one of these types of revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures and tests of details. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these types of revenue and the related deferred revenue the firm's tests of details included comparing amounts the issuer recorded to revenue and deferred revenue to cash receipts included in the issuer's bank statements. The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain reconciling items it identified in these comparisons. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

With respect to Deferred Revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue and deferred revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm performed procedures to test deferred revenue by selecting a sample of monthly activity from a summary schedule. These procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence of the completeness of deferred revenue because the firm only selected activity from recorded deferred revenue. Further the firm did not test the transactions underlying the activity in the months selected for testing. (AS 2315.17 and .25)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the classification of deferred revenue as current or non-current. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as an agent for this revenue. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test a revenue transaction it selected for testing beyond performing procedures on the related cost of goods sold. (AS 2301.08)

For certain other revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: • During the year for another transaction the issuer recognized certain revenue that had been previously deferred. The firm did not perform procedures beyond a certain recalculation to test the appropriateness of the recognition of this revenue in the current year and the continued deferral of the remaining revenue for this transaction. (AS 2301.08)

The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to perform certain procedures to test the existence of deferred revenue. The firm selected a sample of balances to test certain deferred revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the balances represented liabilities as of year end. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to one type of revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing this revenue consisted primarily of performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The firm did not sufficiently test this underlying data because for certain cash selections the firm did not evaluate whether the cash receipts related to this revenue. (AS 1105.10)

For these two types of deferred revenue the firm used certain reports in its substantive testing but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing this revenue and the related deferred revenue included performing a software-assisted analysis to test the relationships among revenue accounts receivable deferred revenue and cash receipts. The firm's approach to addressing the reliability of the audit evidence obtained from this type of analysis was dependent upon the firm's testing of certain data underlying the analysis. The sample the firm tested for the second half of the year was smaller than the one the firm determined necessary for these procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control over managing changes to the issuer's production environment for each of these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two other IT systems the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test controls over the completeness of the populations of changes that the control owners used in the operation of the control because it limited its procedures to inspecting evidence that the control owner traced one system change into the populations used. (AS 2201.46)

With respect to revenue and deferred revenue at certain other business units that the firm subjected to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test revenue and deferred revenue for these business units. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's assertion that contractual prices or factors of list prices were the most appropriate selection for BESP. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether prices for extended warranty services that were separately stated on customer invoices represented evidence that customers had the option to purchase these services for an expressly stated amount separate from the price of the products. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to process certain revenue and the related deferred revenue. The firm selected for testing a control over change management for this revenue system but did not perform any procedures to determine whether the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing represented the complete population of changes made to this system. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used an internally developed information-technology (IT) system to calculate the amount of revenue and the related deferred revenue to be recorded for certain revenue transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over change management for this revenue system but did not perform any procedures to determine whether the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing represented the complete population of changes made to this system. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to test certain deferred revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used a proprietary accept/reject methodology for substantive testing. With respect to deferred revenue the firm identified misstatements but did not reject the test and perform other audit procedures. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain unbilled receivables and deferred revenue the firm selected for testing unbilled receivables and deferred revenue that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the balances tested were properly recorded. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of unbilled receivables and deferred revenue from this revenue source. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and deferred revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the method used by the issuer to recognize certain revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas and identified the deficiencies below in the related areas reviewed. The firm did not perform any procedures to examine a material adjustment the issuer made to revenue during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)