Explorer

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 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 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 revenue at two of these business units 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)

For revenue from completed contracts the firm designed one of its substantive procedures as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedure using the same sample size it determined for its control testing. This sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the substantive procedure because the firm did not use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

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 issuer used multiple IT systems to calculate and record certain revenue based on the related order information. The following deficiency was identified: · 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 certain of 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 revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm (1) did not consider appropriate factors such as the firm's established tolerable misstatement and the characteristics of the population and (2) included erroneous inputs as to the size of the population identification of a significant risk and the level of assurance to be obtained from other procedures. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from services provided to customers based on certain agreed-upon specifications (“service revenue”). The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test both types of service 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 discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on quantity and specified rates. 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 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 based on labor hours recorded in the issuer's time system. 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 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 substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of analytical procedures. To develop its expectation the firm used the quantities of units sold that had been recorded in the issuer's revenue system. The firm's testing of these quantities was not sufficient because its sample size was too small to assess whether the quantities recorded in this system were reliable. (AS 2305.16)

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 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 firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. In determining the sample size the firm did not consider the relevant factors including the firm's established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population of sales transactions. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to achieve the planned audit objective. Further the firm's selection of transactions for testing was confined to transactions from certain months of the year not the entire population of net sales. Therefore the results of these audit procedures could not be projected to the entire population. (AS 2315.16 .23 .23A and .24)

The firm's approach for testing revenue included selecting a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. In determining the sample size the firm did not consider the relevant factors including the firm's established tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population of sales transactions. As a result the sample size the firm used in its test of details was too small to achieve the planned audit objective. Further the firm's selection of transactions for testing was confined to transactions from certain months of the year not the entire population of net sales. In addition the firm did not evaluate whether all revenue recognition criteria had been met for transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple point-of-sale (POS) applications to initiate and process revenue transactions. The firm selected for testing two controls related to the automated calculation of sales discounts and the review of those discounts by designated individuals with certain access levels. For restaurant sales the following deficiency was identified: · The firm performed certain dual-purpose testing for its substantive testing and its testing of the operating effectiveness of certain related controls: - The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not (1) take into account tolerable misstatement and the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and (2) use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 .23A and .44)

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 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)

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 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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing described above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

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

To test certain revenue the firm selected a sample of items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining the 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)

In determining its sample size used to test revenue the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population. As a result the sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)