New facts after issuance
Information that could materially affect a conclusion is evaluated promptly, and may lead to revision or withdrawal.
The published rule
The route
From application to conclusion.
Pre-engagement
Scope, competence and conflicts of interest. We decline here if we must — and that is part of the value of the statement.
May be declinedPlanning
Assurance level, materiality, the sampling plan and the timetable.
Agreed in writingStrategic analysis
Understanding the entity, its data sources and the risk of material misstatement.
Engagement teamPerforming the examination
Document review and site visits by risk, tracing figures back to their sources.
Engagement teamFindings and response
Findings are raised, you respond, we examine the response. No correction is proposed at any stage.
No corrections proposedIndependent technical review
Performed by someone who took no part in the work.
Independent reviewerIssuance decision
Taken by someone who neither performed nor reviewed.
Authorised decision-maker
Why three roles: the person who performs tends to defend their conclusion, and the person who reviews tends to confirm what they reviewed. The third decision breaks that tendency.
After issuance
The engagement does not end at the signature.
Complaints
About conduct, service or public information. Handled by personnel independent of the subject matter.
How to raise oneAppeals
A challenge to a specific decision. Decided by people who took no part in the challenged activity.
How to appeal
Where the effort falls
Steps four and five are yours.
The quality of your evidence determines the duration of a verification more than any other factor — more than the standard, more than the sector, and considerably more than the size of the organization.
Read next
Describe the claim — not the service.
Tell us what must be relied on, who will rely on it and by what date. We will confirm the correct programme, evidence requirement and responsible entity — or tell you it is outside our scope.