CIA-2 - Information Gathering, Analysis, and Evaluation (40% of the exam) - Section B.2
Evaluate the relevance, sufficiency, and reliability of evidence gathered to support engagement objectives, recognizing factors that affect reliability such as independence of source and corroboration.
Apply criteria for evaluating the quality of evidence gathered during an engagement, judging whether it is relevant, sufficient, and reliable enough to support a conclusion. Recognise factors that strengthen reliability, including evidence obtained directly from an independent source, corroboration from multiple sources, and evidence drawn from a well-governed system, and the standard that evidence must let an informed, competent person reach the same conclusion as the auditor.
lock_openFree sampleInformation Gathering, Analysis, and Evaluationhard
An auditor is developing the conclusion for an inventory engagement. Two findings rely on a report exported by warehouse staff from the same system whose access controls the engagement found to be weak; a third finding rests on independent physical counts the audit team performed. How should the reliability of this evidence shape the conclusion?
AGive the independent physical-count evidence greater weight and corroborate the system-based findings before relying on them in the conclusion.check_circle Correct
BWeight all three findings equally, because each was documented in the workpapers and independently reviewed by the engagement supervisor before sign-off.
CDiscard the two system-based findings entirely, since any data drawn from a system with weak access controls is unreliable and cannot support a conclusion.
DRely mainly on the system report because it covers the full population, treating the physical counts as a limited sample of secondary importance to the conclusion.
Evidence reliability rises with independent source and corroboration, so system data from weakly controlled sources is weighted below independent audit evidence. Conclusions must rest on reliable evidence. Data exported from a system whose access controls are weak is less reliable than counts the audit team performed itself, so the auditor weights the independent evidence higher and corroborates the rest before relying on it.
Why A is correct: Correct: reliability rises with independent source and corroboration, so the auditor weights the self-obtained counts higher and seeks corroboration for the weakly controlled system data.
Why B is wrong: Tempting because supervision was performed, but review does not change the source reliability; evidence from a weakly controlled system is inherently less reliable than independent audit counts.
Why C is wrong: Tempting as a purity rule, but weak controls reduce reliability rather than voiding the evidence outright; it can still contribute if corroborated and appropriately weighted.
Why D is wrong: Tempting because population coverage feels stronger, but coverage does not cure reliability; data from a weakly controlled system should not outrank independently obtained audit evidence.
Exam traps in Information Gathering, Analysis, and Evaluation
Answers that look right on this material and are not. Each one is a distractor from a different question in the CIA-2 bank for this domain.
A payment summary prepared by the accounts payable clerk whose work is being examined during the engagement.
errorWhy it is wrong: This is tempting because it is directly on point and easy to obtain, but evidence produced by the party under review lacks source independence and is therefore weaker, not stronger.
Rely primarily on the printed approval emails, because they show the authorising decision that the objective is concerned with
errorWhy it is wrong: It is tempting because the emails speak directly to authorisation, but records the clerk selected and printed can be filtered or altered, so they are less reliable than auditor-obtained data.
A written representation from the billing manager confirming that the system has been configured to apply the approved tariff rates
errorWhy it is wrong: Tempting because a manager's confirmation is easy to obtain and seems authoritative, but internal representations from an interested party are among the least reliable forms of evidence for an accuracy question.