Explorer

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond tracing a sample of revenue transactions to issuer-prepared invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform procedures to test revenue beyond tracing all revenue transactions to issuer-prepared invoices and evaluating the appropriateness of the issuer's revenue recognition policy. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test controls over the completeness of information that the firm used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded an adjustment to ensure that revenue was appropriately recognized at year end. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the adjustment to revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For certain other revenue the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test whether performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized beyond obtaining issuer

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test (1) contractual arrangements to determine whether certain revenue was recorded in accordance with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers and (2) whether the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue recognition beyond obtaining and reviewing internally generated customer invoices. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple revenue sources. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer earned revenue through cryptocurrency mining. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate (1) the terms and conditions of the issuer's arrangements with its mining pool operators and (2) the method used by the mining pool operators to allocate consideration to the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of certain external data it used to substantively test this revenue beyond documenting the methodology used by one source to price crypto assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the terms and conditions in the issuer's contracts for certain types of revenue to determine their effect on the recognition of this revenue because it limited its procedures to evaluating the terms and conditions of one contract for certain of these types of revenue. (AS 2301.08 .11 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the presentation of certain types of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that included the review of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For one control the firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the report from which it selected its sample for testing the control. (AS 1105.10).

With respect to the revenue transaction cycle the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to (1) obtain the necessary understanding of the flow of transactions including the effect of the issuer's information technology ('IT') systems to identify the likely sources of potential misstatements and (2) obtain a sufficient understanding of the likely sources of potential misstatements to identify and test controls that addressed the risks of misstatement for the relevant revenue assertions. (AS 2201.30 and .39)

The firm used the issuer's annual analysis in its substantive procedures. The firm did not sufficiently test or test controls over the accuracy of the shipment dates because it limited its selection of sample items to the last seven days of the year under audit and therefore was not representative of the population. (AS 2315.24)

The firm selected revenue transactions for substantive testing. For certain transactions the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligation had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one category of revenue that was generally earned upon product shipment the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate differences identified for certain revenue transactions selected for testing between the shipping dates and dates in which revenue was recognized to determine whether revenue was recognized in the proper period. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another category of revenue the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test a portion of revenue because it did not select its sample in a manner that was representative of the entire population and as such the results of testing performed could not be projected to the entire population. (AS 2315.24)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · In addition for certain sales transactions selected for testing related to sales arrangements in which the firm concluded had a single performance obligation the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the component's recognition of revenue in different periods for the respective arrangements. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

For revenue from fixed-price contracts the firm performed substantive procedures to test a portion of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test the remaining portion. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the occurrence of certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)

To test certain revenue the firm selected contracts for testing that met specific criteria to evaluate whether the revenue was appropriately recognized based on the terms of those contracts. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions from this revenue source. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the standalone selling prices that the issuer used to record revenue. (AS 2301.08)

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 following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect the issuer's determination of the duration of certain contracts and the related revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08)

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 following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether certain contracts contained embedded leases because it did not evaluate certain terms that may have met the definition of a lease. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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 following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether all performance obligations were identified for certain contracts because it did not identify that the contracts contained an option that may have represented a material right. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

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 estimated standalone selling prices were based on an expected cost plus a margin approach that involved significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the expected costs of satisfying the performance obligations and related margins. (AS 2501.16) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these arrangements and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K disclosing that its previously issued financial statements should no longer be relied upon and that it plans on restating its financial statements to correct these misstatements.

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain payments that the issuer recognized as revenue met the criteria for revenue recognition set forth in FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or (as discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of the order information used in its substantive testing of certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test the allocation of certain other revenue because it did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy of the order information used to calculate and record the revenue. (AS 2301.08)

For its substantive revenue testing the firm selected transactions from the prepaid deposits and deferred revenue populations as of the end of the year under audit. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test transactions for which revenue had been recognized during the year. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from outside sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2502.40)

The firm used certain price and quantity information from external sources in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of such information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm developed an independent expectation to test revenue but did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of data used to develop its expectation. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.23)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external information used in its substantive procedures to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external data it used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized revenue from services provided to customers based on certain agreed-upon specifications (“service revenue”). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of invoices to perform its substantive testing of both types of service revenue. For the remaining items selected the system-generated activity report was not relevant to determining whether the service had been provided as it was a different type of service and the firm did not otherwise obtain support to test the occurrence of revenue for these selections. (AS 2315.25)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on quantity and specified rates. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used the quantities reported by the issuer's customers in its procedures to test this revenue. The firm did not test or in the alternative (as discussed above) sufficiently test the control over the completeness of this data. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts based on labor hours recorded in the issuer's time system. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used labor hours in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy of these labor hours. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on the daily market price of a commodity that the issuer obtained from a service organization. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm obtained the service organization's pricing information from the issuer and used it in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of this information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from a contract with a customer based on specific formulas that measured the amount of consideration the issuer would receive for satisfaction of its performance obligation. The firm's substantive procedures to test this revenue included testing a sample of revenue transactions. For the transactions selected for testing the firm did not recalculate the consideration that the issuer used to record revenue to determine whether the consideration was calculated in accordance with the contract. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not sufficiently test the estimated total costs to complete a certain contract it selected for testing because it did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the remaining number of units the issuer expected to deliver that the issuer used to develop the estimated total costs to complete. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts based on certain inputs. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the specific inputs used by the issuer in recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified: · For the selected transactions the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the issuer's performance obligations had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining revenue transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .13)

Deficiencies performing substantive procedures over selected revenue transactions and the remaining population.

The firm did not perform procedures to test that the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond obtaining an issuer-produced report and issuer-produced data. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether a certain contract was with a customer and whether the issuer had identified all of the performance obligations; (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not evaluate whether the counterparty for one contract was a customer or acting as an agent for the issuer; (AS 2301.08 and .13)