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 issuer's estimate of the relative standalone selling prices. The firm performed substantive procedures to test the accuracy of certain issuer-produced data the firm used in its testing of the relative standalone selling prices. The sample sizes the firm used in these substantive procedures were smaller than the ones the firm determined necessary to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1105.10)

With respect to a second type of revenue and the related deferred revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The sample size that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this deferred revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related deferred revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue and the related deferred revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue and deferred revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it used a proprietary accept/reject methodology that did not consider factors relevant to determining sample size for substantive testing. (AS 2301.37 and .42; AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

To test the existence of deferred revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The sample size the firm used in its substantive test of details was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the characteristics of the population in determining its sample size. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and deferred revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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's approach to testing certain revenue included reliance on controls. The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because this procedure was designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiency described above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)