Explorer

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a certain issuer listing used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over useful lives the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the useful lives of the assets. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over asset-related disclosures in the financial statements the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of reports and schedules used in the operation of the control beyond testing one control over the useful life data discussed above. (AS 2201.39)

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).

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's classification of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that included the review of revenue. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain other controls the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's substantive testing of revenue: · For certain revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer in its estimate of revenue recognition. (AS 2501.16)

The following deficiency was identified with respect to the firm's substantive testing of revenue: · For a certain revenue disclosure the firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated report used by the firm to test the disclosure. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) over certain of these IT systems the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the approval of access for new employees to these IT systems. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated reports used in the firm's testing of access for active and terminated employees to certain of the issuer's IT systems. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a review control designed to ensure that access levels are appropriate. The firm did not evaluate the specific procedures performed by the control owners to evaluate whether access continued to be appropriate. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 tested IT general controls and identified a control deficiency for a change management control related to developers having direct access to implement changes. The firm concluded it was a significant deficiency based on the firm's testing of a compensating control that consisted of management's review of change requests. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the severity of the control deficiency because it did not identify that the compensating control did not address the risk related to unauthorized changes being made directly in the system. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of an annual analysis of the revenue recognized by the issuer using revenue data shipment dates and delivery dates (collectively 'data'). The firm did not evaluate the 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 firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of an annual analysis of the revenue recognized by the issuer using revenue data shipment dates and delivery dates (collectively 'data'). The firm did not identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used the issuer's annual analysis in its substantive procedures. The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of revenue data and the accuracy of delivery dates. (AS 1105.10)

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 did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used by an external specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. (AS 2502.31)

In addition the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the unit cost of certain inventory included selecting a sample of inventory items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether this inventory was recorded at the lower of cost or net realizable value. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm's substantive procedures to test the unit cost of certain inventory included selecting a sample of inventory items for testing. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and reports used in its substantive testing of this inventory. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory was to develop an independent expectation as a range. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for its assumption that certain items did not require a reserve including considering that the issuer recorded a reserve for this inventory during the financial reporting close process. (AS 2501.22; AS 2810.03)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory was to develop an independent expectation as a range. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for certain other assumptions. (AS 2501.22)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory was to develop an independent expectation as a range. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to demonstrate that its independent expectation as a range encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate evidence. (AS 2501.25)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory was to develop an independent expectation as a range. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the difference between its independent expectation as a range and the issuer's recorded reserve. (AS 2501.26; AS 2810.13)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The issuer uses an application to record invoices and the resulting revenue and generate revenue reports. The firm selected for testing change management controls that consisted of the review of changes to this application. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners 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 firm selected for testing a control over certain revenue that consisted of the automated generation of a customer invoice and recognition of related revenue upon shipment of goods. The firm did not test the configuration of the system or any instances of the control that occurred during the year (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control over certain other revenue that consisted of management's review of customer invoices. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners 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 firm selected for testing a control over certain other revenue that consisted of management's review of customer invoices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

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)

The firm tested information technology general controls for an application used to process revenue and accounts receivable transactions and identified control deficiencies related to access and change management. The firm selected for testing controls over certain revenue that consisted of the automated generation of a customer invoice and recognition of related revenue and accounts receivable upon shipment of goods. The firm did not sufficiently test these controls because it tested only one instance which was not appropriate due to the identified control deficiencies. (AS 2201.46)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test accounts receivable 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 automated controls discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and 23A)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The issuer uses an application to record invoices and the resulting revenue and generate revenue reports. The firm did not identify and test any controls (1) over the completeness of information used in the operation of these controls and (2) that addressed the risk of developers migrating unapproved changes to production. (AS 2201.39)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of customer invoices. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners 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)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · In addition the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the fraud risk of improper recognition of certain revenue at year end. (AS 2201.39)

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)

During the year the issuer acquired a business entity and used an external specialist to determine the fair value of the acquired intangible assets. The firm's approach for testing the fair value was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently (1) evaluate the reasonableness of forecasts and (2) test the accuracy and completeness of data that the issuer provided to the external specialist because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management. (AS 1210.12)

The external specialist used information from various other sources to develop assumptions to determine the fair value of those assets. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of information the external specialist used. (AS 2502.31)

The external specialist used information from various other sources to develop assumptions to determine the fair value of those assets. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the external valuation specialist because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired a business entity. The firm selected for testing a control over the review of valuation of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed in the business combination. 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)

During the year the issuer acquired a business entity. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired a business entity. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the useful life of this intangible asset because it limited its procedures to inquiry and tracing the useful life to the issuer's amortization policy. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11) [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 for fiscal years ending on or after December 15 2020.]

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 firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and reports used in its substantive procedures to test revenue deferred revenue and accounts receivable. (AS 1105.10)

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)

The firm used a proprietary accept/reject methodology for substantive testing. With respect to deferred revenue the firm identified misstatements but did not reject the test and perform other audit procedures. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used multiple information technology (IT) applications to initiate process and record transactions related to revenue and related accounts and inventory. The firm selected for testing certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these applications. The accuracy and completeness of these data and reports depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

With respect to Revenue and Related Accounts to test certain revenue the firm selected sales transactions for testing. The number of transactions the firm used in its substantive procedures to test revenue was 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)