Perform work plans with professional skepticism, due care, supervision, and review.
Performing the work plan means more than completing the steps in an audit program. The work must be performed with professional skepticism, due care, supervision, and review, and it must still address the risks identified in planning.
The practical task is to decide whether the work actually supports the conclusion or only appears complete. A signed-off checklist is not enough if the evidence does not address the risk.
This lesson focuses on how to:
The work plan should connect risk, evidence, documentation, and conclusion. A completed checklist is weak if the actual evidence does not address the risk.
| Element | What good performance shows | Weakness in a case |
|---|---|---|
| Professional skepticism | The practitioner remains alert to contradictions, unusual trends, fraud indicators, and unsupported management explanations. | The team accepts management’s answer despite contrary evidence or obvious incentives. |
| Due care | Procedures are planned, performed, and documented with enough care for the engagement risk. | Work is rushed, incomplete, performed by staff without proper direction, or unsupported by evidence. |
| Objective state of mind | The practitioner evaluates evidence fairly and does not bias the file toward a preferred conclusion. | The file emphasizes favorable evidence and ignores exceptions or contrary indicators. |
| Risk link | Each procedure addresses an overall risk, assertion risk, or engagement criterion. | Procedures are performed because they are in last year’s file, not because they answer current risk. |
| Evidence trail | The file shows what was tested, why it was selected, what was found, and what conclusion follows. | The file has sign-offs but no clear trail from procedure to evidence to conclusion. |
| Timely escalation | Unusual findings are brought to an appropriate senior person before the conclusion is finalized. | Exceptions remain unresolved until after reporting deadlines or are cleared without support. |
Good performance is visible in the file. An experienced reviewer should be able to understand the risk, procedure, evidence, exception analysis, and conclusion without relying on undocumented conversation.
Supervision gives direction while work is being performed. Review evaluates whether the work is complete, relevant, and sufficient before the conclusion is reached. The two concepts are linked, but they are not identical.
| Review point | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Staff work matches the work plan | Confirms that procedures were not skipped, changed informally, or performed on the wrong population. |
| High-risk areas receive senior attention | Ensures judgmental or fraud-sensitive areas are not cleared by inexperienced staff alone. |
| Exceptions are resolved | Prevents unsupported conclusions when the evidence conflicts with management’s position. |
| Documentation supports the conclusion | Allows an experienced reviewer to understand what was done and why the conclusion follows. |
| Specialist or internal audit work is evaluated | Prevents inappropriate reliance on work whose scope, assumptions, or quality do not fit the engagement. |
| Open points are cleared with evidence | Avoids clearing review notes based on conversation alone when corroboration is required. |
Review should be more than a final sign-off. It should challenge whether the procedure answered the risk, whether exceptions were evaluated, and whether the conclusion follows from the evidence.
The response differs depending on whether the problem is the work itself or the way the work was recorded.
| Signal | Likely issue | Response |
|---|---|---|
| No evidence that the procedure was performed | Insufficient work performance | Perform or complete the procedure before concluding. |
| Evidence exists, but the file does not explain selection, extent, or conclusion | Documentation weakness | Improve the working paper and link the evidence to the risk and conclusion. |
| Procedure was performed on the wrong population | Insufficient work performance | Redesign and reperform the procedure on the correct population. |
| Review note asks why an exception was accepted | Potential evidence and documentation issue | Investigate the exception, obtain support, and document the resolution. |
| Management explanation is documented without corroboration | Insufficient evidence | Obtain independent or corroborating evidence. |
| Work was done after the reporting date without explanation | Documentation and timing issue | Document timing, subsequent evidence relevance, and whether the report date is affected. |
This distinction matters because documentation cannot repair evidence that was never obtained. If the work was not performed or was performed on the wrong population, the practitioner needs additional work, not cleaner wording.
Professional skepticism is an active state of mind during performance, not only a planning phrase. It requires follow-up when evidence is inconsistent, incomplete, unusually favorable, or dependent on management’s unsupported explanations.
| Case fact | Skeptical response |
|---|---|
| Management explains a variance but provides no support | Corroborate with source records, external evidence, or subsequent results. |
| Exception appears isolated but similar exceptions occurred before | Investigate whether the issue is systematic and reconsider risk assessment. |
| Staff clear a review note based only on conversation | Obtain and document evidence supporting the resolution. |
| Procedure result contradicts another work paper | Reconcile the inconsistency before concluding. |
| Fraud indicator appears late in the engagement | Escalate, extend procedures, and evaluate communication and reporting effects. |
Skepticism does not mean assuming dishonesty. It means not accepting explanations or favorable evidence without appropriate support.
If the performed work does not address the identified risk, the practitioner should revise the work plan rather than force a conclusion from weak evidence.
| Problem | Next action |
|---|---|
| Procedure addresses existence but risk is completeness | Add procedures that search for omitted items, such as tracing from source records to the accounting records. |
| Procedure tests current-year activity but risk relates to opening balances | Perform opening-balance or prior-period evidence procedures. |
| Procedure relies on controls that failed | Reduce control reliance and increase substantive work. |
| Analytical procedure identifies an unexplained fluctuation | Obtain corroborating evidence and test the underlying records. |
| Staff ignored fraud indicator | Escalate, extend procedures, consider unpredictability, and evaluate communication duties. |
| Reviewer identifies unsupported conclusion | Obtain additional evidence or revise the conclusion before the report is issued. |
The corrective action should be specific. “Do more work” is weaker than “select subsequent payments after year end and trace to receiving reports and vendor invoices to search for unrecorded liabilities.”
| Step | Question | Output |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Quality issue | What is wrong with the work? | Skepticism, due care, supervision, review, risk coverage, documentation, or evidence issue. |
| 2. Case fact | What fact shows the issue? | Specific evidence from the file or scenario. |
| 3. Unsupported conclusion | What conclusion cannot yet be supported? | Affected risk, assertion, criterion, or report point. |
| 4. Corrective action | What should be done before concluding? | Additional procedure, review, supervision, consultation, or documentation. |
| 5. Communication | Who should be informed if significant? | Senior team member, management, governance, or report users. |
Use this sequence for review notes, staff work issues, unresolved exceptions, unsupported sign-offs, rushed work, or contradictory evidence.
| Pitfall | Correction |
|---|---|
| Equating sign-off with adequate work. | Review the substance of the procedure, evidence, and conclusion. |
| Calling every issue a documentation issue. | Decide whether evidence was actually obtained before recommending documentation cleanup. |
| Accepting management explanation without corroboration. | Obtain independent or supporting evidence when the explanation affects the conclusion. |
| Ignoring supervision because staff completed the program. | Assess whether staff received direction and whether high-risk work was reviewed by an appropriate person. |
| Failing to revise work when risk changes. | Update procedures when new facts show the original work plan is no longer responsive. |