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. 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.
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.