Explorer

The firm's procedures to test the accuracy of certain other issuer-produced data the firm used in its substantive testing of certain of this revenue consisted of selecting a sample of items for testing. 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)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 deficiency 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the 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 sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 for three of the business units discussed above 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 sample for testing certain revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population including the expected size and frequency of misstatements. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time using an input method based on labor hours incurred. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiency in the firm's evaluation of the control deficiency discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected a sample to test revenue transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used to perform these substantive procedures was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it used a methodology for determining the sample size that was not designed to test an account balance or a transaction class. As a result the firm did not consider factors relevant to determining sample size for substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure over revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining the sample size for a test of controls and did not consider factors relevant to determining the sample size for its substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from multiple business entities. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenues for each of the three above business entities were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the populations the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the populations. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the rebate accrual 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)

To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for certain revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on controls. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing described above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 recognized certain revenue from contracts using the percentage-of-completion method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test certain contracts 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on information about the quantities sold and delivery dates that was provided by a third-party administrator. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue for these locations 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 sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test the volume rebates 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 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 this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The sample size that the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this 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 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test certain 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A) Unrelated to our review the issuer filed a Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements and the firm's related audit reports should not be relied upon because of certain material misstatements contained in the financial statements. The issuer corrected the misstatements and reported that its ICFR was not effective. The firm also expressed an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR.

At two of the issuer's business units the issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on information that was provided by an external party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For this business unit the firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing samples of transactions and performing substantive analytical procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used 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 selected a sample of revenue transactions for testing by computing the number of invoices issued during the year by subtracting the first invoice number from the final invoice number for the year from the sales sub-ledger and dividing by the required sample size. The firm then selected invoices based on a defined sampling interval. The firm did not (1) determine whether the invoices selected for testing were recorded within the sales sub-ledger and (2) obtain and test the reconciliation of the sales sub-ledger to the issuer's general ledger. (AS 1105.10)

To test revenue the firm selected revenue transactions that exceeded a monetary threshold and judgmentally selected a sample of revenue transactions from the remaining population. In determining the sample size for the remaining population the firm did not take into account the relevant factors including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

For certain other revenue the following deficiency was identified: · The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining its sample the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedure to test revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining a sample size for a test of controls and did not consider factors relevant to determining the sample size for its substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test 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 deficiency 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 certain other revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer used information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing an automated control but its testing of a sample of only one item was not sufficient because the firm did not test the configuration or programming of the automated control or perform other procedures that would have provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the automated control was designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue included selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The firm's sample was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test this revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The sample size the firm used in its substantive procedures to test 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts as either single performance obligations or multiple performance obligations satisfied at a point in time. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of selecting a sample of transactions for testing. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm's sample was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowance for incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · In selecting its sample of items to test Revenue B the firm did not determine whether it was appropriate to select items from accounts receivable activity reports that may not have included a complete population of revenue transactions for the year. Further in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the relevant factors including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 .23A and .24)

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

The sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure over one category of revenue was too small to achieve the planned objective for the test because it used the methodology for determining the sample size for a test of controls and did not consider factors relevant to determining the sample size for its substantive testing. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

In addition the sample size the firm used in a substantive procedure to test another category of revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedure was 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 certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because (1) the firm did not appropriately consider tolerable misstatement for the population and (2) 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 2315.16 .19 .23 and 23A)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of change management and management's review of customer invoices controls discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and 23A)

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