AUD Reporting, Attestation, and Related Engagements

AUD reporting coverage for audit opinions, ICFR, SSARS services, attestation work, and specialized engagements.

This part moves from fieldwork into reporting, attestation, and related service lines. The core issue is not just what happened during the engagement, but how the practitioner communicates the result, including when opinions change and when the engagement type itself is different.

In This Part

Reporting questions should begin with engagement classification. A financial statement audit, ICFR audit, review, compilation, preparation, attestation engagement, SOC report, and governmental audit do not provide the same assurance or use the same report language. Once the engagement type is clear, the remaining question is usually whether scope, criteria, findings, or users require modified wording.

Reporting Classification Lens

Engagement or report type What to identify first Common AUD trap
Financial statement audit Opinion type, scope limitation, GAAP departure, and explanatory paragraphs. Modifying the opinion when only emphasis language is needed.
ICFR reporting Whether control deficiencies affect the ICFR opinion or related communication. Confusing control deficiency communication with financial statement misstatement reporting.
SSARS services Whether the service is preparation, compilation, or review. Giving audit-level assurance to a non-audit service.
Attestation and SOC reporting Subject matter, criteria, assertion, users, and report restriction. Treating every attestation report like a financial statement audit report.
Governmental and specialized engagements Additional standards, compliance requirements, and restricted-use language. Ignoring the extra reporting layer created by the engagement environment.

Reporting Decision Sequence

Step Reporting decision Why it controls the answer
1. Classify the engagement Identify whether the work is an audit, review, compilation, preparation, attestation engagement, SOC report, or specialized audit. Assurance level and report wording start with the service type.
2. Identify the reporting framework Determine whether the report concerns GAAP financial statements, ICFR, compliance, special-purpose framework statements, or subject matter criteria. The same finding can lead to different report consequences under different frameworks.
3. Evaluate scope and evidence Decide whether the practitioner obtained sufficient appropriate evidence or faced a limitation. Scope problems affect whether an opinion can be expressed and how it is modified.
4. Evaluate misstatement or deficiency severity Consider materiality, pervasiveness, material weakness, significant deficiency, or criteria deviation. Severity drives unmodified, qualified, adverse, disclaimer, or communication-only outcomes.
5. Add required emphasis or restriction Decide whether users need emphasis language, other-matter language, restricted-use wording, or additional regulatory reporting. Added language can be required even when the main opinion is not modified.

How to Use This Part

  • Read this part carefully if AUD questions feel similar until the reporting outcome changes.
  • Focus on what triggers a modified report, an added reporting layer, or a different service type.
  • Revisit these chapters whenever a missed question turns on wording, opinion type, or engagement classification.

In this section

Revised on Monday, June 15, 2026