Explorer

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory at these business units was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain issuer-produced data in its testing of this reserve but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

Certain of the issuer's inventory was subject to cycle counts and the issuer's cycle-count policy required this inventory to be counted at specific frequencies during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether each inventory item was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the issuer's cycle-count policy. (AS 2201.39)

Certain of the issuer's inventory was subject to cycle counts and the issuer's cycle-count policy required this inventory to be counted at specific frequencies during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's monitoring of its cycle count results. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information that the control owners used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to the issuer's work-in-process inventory at certain business units that the firm subjected to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the existence of this work-in-process inventory. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to the issuer's work-in-process inventory at certain business units that the firm subjected to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of this work-in-process inventory. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into arrangements to purchase inventory from certain suppliers. The firm did not evaluate whether these arrangements represented firm purchase commitments for which a loss should have been recognized under FASB ASC Topic 330 Inventory. Further the firm did not evaluate whether these arrangements created an unconditional performance obligation that would have required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 440 Commitments. (AS 2301.08)

Certain inventory at one of the issuer's segments was subject to cycle counts and the issuer's cycle-count policy required this inventory to be counted at specific frequencies during the year. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed (1) whether each inventory item was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the issuer's cycle count policy and (2) the issuer's monitoring of the accuracy of the cycle-count results. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer held certain inventory at external warehouses. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of this inventory. (AS 2510.14)

The issuer classified inventory as current or noncurrent based on its estimate of when it expected to sell the inventory. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop this estimate. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 230 Statement of Cash Flows. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The issuer held inventory at numerous business units. The firm subjected certain of the issuer's business units that were included within three of the issuer's segments to more extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · Inventory at one of these business units was subject to cycle counts and the issuer used its IT system to determine the frequency with which the items should be counted during the year by assigning a count designation to each inventory item. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether (1) the issuer's IT system was configured to assign an appropriate count designation to each inventory item and (2) each inventory item was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the designated count frequency. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The issuer held inventory at numerous business units. The firm subjected certain of the issuer's business units that were included within three of the issuer's segments to more extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a second of these business units the firm identified control deficiencies related to the issuer's cycle counts performed at certain locations including the lack of monitoring of whether the cycle-count results were sufficiently accurate. The firm identified and tested compensating controls that it believed mitigated these deficiencies but did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the accuracy of the cycle-counts results. (AS 2201.68)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. The issuer held inventory at numerous business units. The firm subjected certain of the issuer's business units that were included within three of the issuer's segments to more extensive audit procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · For a third of these business units the firm selected for testing controls over the existence of inventory that included the control owners' use of various system-generated reports in the operation of the controls. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risk that unauthorized or inappropriate changes could be made to these reports. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer completed numerous nonmonetary exchanges of inventory with various counterparties. The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to these nonmonetary exchanges that were required under FASB ASC Topic 845 Nonmonetary Transactions. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence with regard to the issuer's inventory cycle-count procedures. Specifically the firm did not obtain an understanding of the issuer's cycle-count process test the sampling methodology and selection parameters used by the issuer or perform other procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's cycle-count procedures were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those which would be obtained by a count of all items during the year. (AS 2510.11)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review and approval of inventory adjustments. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the accuracy of the inventory adjustments. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's quarterly review and approval of the inventory reserve analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to evaluate the (1) reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the inventory reserve and (2) accuracy and completeness of a system-generated report used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the inventory reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the inventory reserve because the firm did not perform procedures to test the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine the inventory reserve. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the inventory reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information the firm used in its substantive testing of the inventory reserve. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain inventory. (AS 2301.08)

Deficiencies testing inventory reconciliation controls and an undersized inventory observation sample.

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the calculation of inventory cost. (AS 2201.39)

To test the existence of certain inventory the firm virtually observed the inventory at selected locations through video calls as of an interim date confirming only that inventory was present and performed certain roll forward procedures from the interim date to year-end. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not identify and test any controls over the existence of this inventory. (AS 2201.39)

To test the existence of certain inventory the firm virtually observed the inventory at selected locations through video calls as of an interim date confirming only that inventory was present and performed certain roll forward procedures from the interim date to year-end. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of this inventory because the firm's observation procedures were not suitable as the firm did not perform any test count procedures during the observations. Therefore these observations did not provide any evidence of the quantity and physical condition of the inventory. (AS 2510.09)

As instructed by the principal auditor the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the performance of physical inventory counts a reconciliation of those counts to the inventory records and the adjustment of those records as appropriate. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the operating effectiveness of these controls because the firm did not test the aspect of the control involving the performance of the physical inventory counts performed during the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.44)

The firm selected for testing an automated control and certain information technology (“IT”) dependent manual controls over inventory that used data or reports that were derived from the issuer's inventory system for which the firm had identified a significant deficiency that was not remediated until the fourth quarter. The firm did not test any instances of the automated control and the controls over the accuracy and completeness of these data and reports subsequent to the remediation of the significant deficiency. (AS 2201.55 and .56)

The firm selected for testing a control over program changes that consisted of the approval testing and monitoring of changes made during the year to the issuer's inventory system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the report that was generated by the inventory system affected by the significant deficiency discussed above and that the firm used to select program changes for testing. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the actual costs for raw materials direct labor and overhead that were used by the issuer's inventory system to calculate manufacturing variances between actual and standard costs for the inventory at one of the issuer's locations. (AS 2201.39)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this inventory 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 firm did not perform any substantive procedures that addressed the accuracy of the allocation of the direct labor and overhead costs to this inventory. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over the existence of certain inventory that included reviews of the issuer's cycle-count results to assess the reliability of the cycle-count process. The issuer used cycle-count data from its inventory systems to manually prepare the cycle-count analyses that were used in the operation of this control. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether these analyses were accurate and complete. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this inventory 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the existence of this inventory. The firm identified exceptions in the operation of these controls and concluded without evaluating the effect of these exceptions on the operating effectiveness of the controls that these exceptions did not result in a control deficiency. (AS 2201.48)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this inventory 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 designed its cycle-count procedures at one of its locations to exclude a portion of the inventory from the cycle counts. In evaluating the design of this control the firm did not assess the effect of the issuer excluding this portion of inventory on the control's ability to effectively prevent or detect a material misstatement. (AS 2201.42) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its control over this inventory and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer disclosed the material weakness in a subsequent filing and noted that the material weakness existed as of the date covered by the firm's audit that was subject to our review.

Due to the deficiency discussed above the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for this inventory were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those that would have been obtained by a count of all items each year. (AS 2510.11)

The firm selected for testing a control over the existence of certain inventory that consisted of the issuer's review of its cycle-count results to assess the reliability of the cycle-count process. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain of this inventory 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 accounted for certain of its inventory under the first-in first-out (FIFO) method of accounting. The firm selected for testing an automated control over the issuer's inventory management system. The firm did not evaluate and test whether this automated control addressed the risk that the inventory management system was appropriately configured to apply the FIFO method of accounting to the inventory. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed cycle counts of inventory at certain of the issuer's locations. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's cycle-count procedures and reviews of reports to monitor the frequency and accuracy of the counts. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of the system-generated reports the issuer used in the operation of its cycle-count monitoring controls. (AS 2201.39)

Due to the deficiency discussed above the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for this inventory were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those that would have been obtained by a count of all items each year. (AS 2510.11)

The issuer performed cycle counts of inventory at certain of the issuer's locations. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's cycle-count procedures and reviews of reports to monitor the accuracy of the counts. The firm did not evaluate the procedures the control owner performed to assess the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of the issuer's cycle-count monitoring controls. (AS 2201.42 and 44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the system-generated report the issuer used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the system-generated report that the firm used in its substantive testing of the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of an IFRS departure related to the valuation of certain inventory. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and slow moving inventory included developing an independent expectation of the issuer's net inventory including finished goods inventory and work-in-process inventory. The firm developed its expectation using gross revenue data for the last three months of the year the period of which was consistent with the return period for finished goods inventory. The firm did not perform procedures to support the appropriateness of using three months of gross revenue as the basis for developing its expectation of net inventory. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .12) [This citation refers to AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair Value Measurements which became effective for audits of financial statements ending on or after December 15 2020.]

The issuer performed cycle counts of certain inventory. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the cycle-count results. The firm did not evaluate whether this control was designed to address whether this inventory was counted with sufficient frequency in accordance with the issuer's cycle-count policy. (AS 2201.42)

Due to the deficiency discussed above the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the cycle-count procedures the issuer used for this inventory were sufficiently reliable to produce results substantially the same as those that would have been obtained by a count of all items each year. (AS 2510.11)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over in-transit inventory for one of the issuer's business units. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this inventory. (AS 2301.08)