Header

Test of Details Workbook

Yes October 2009
No
Client name
Period End Date
Prepared by
Date Prepared
Reviewed by
Date Reviewed

Purpose
This workbook is used to document our test of details. We are not required to complete the KPMG Monetary Unit Sampling Document or the KPMG Sampling
Plan as the required documentation is integrated in this template. However, we are required to complete Sections I and III of the IDEA® CAATs Document.
Refer to KAM for further guidance on the use of Computer Assisted Audit Techniques.
[5430.6...
When selecting items for a test of details, we may choose to test all items in the population or selected items in the population. We may select items that meet
Objectives of the test
specific characteristics or aofsample
details [5430.4]
of items. The purpose of this workbook is to document key information in relation to a test of details. This includes:

Audit procedures (nature, timing and extent)

Planned alternative audit procedures [5430.11]

ROSM assessment [5430.1... Low Moderate High

Sampling Specialist Considerstions [5695]

When performing a substantive sampling technique, the engagement team considers the following questions:
1. Is the MUS sample planned for the performance of other than a substantive audit procedure? Yes No Unanswered
2. Is substantive sampling planned for use in a financial statement audit that requires confidence levels
different from those stated in the KPMG Audit Manual? (e.g., audits of federal agencies may require the use of
Yes No Unanswered
IDEA® MUS)
3. Is MUS planned for use in selecting items for a complex population, such as a population involving multiple Yes No Unanswered
locations?
4. Are substantive sampling techniques planned other than those outlined in the KPMG Audit Manual? Yes No Unanswered
5. Does the engagement team need specific tolerable deviation rates, expected error rates, and/ or confidence
levels to be achieved with an attribute sample? Yes No Unanswered
6. Is a substantive sample planned for use in selecting items as a basis for a statistical conclusion expressed Yes No Unanswered
in a special report, for an attestation engagement other than a financial statement audit or for performing and
reporting on an agreed-upon procedures engagement?
7. Does the expected difference in the population to be sampled exceed the engagement SMT? Yes No Unanswered

The engagement team documents and includes the relevant working paper describing the nature and results of the consultation following guidance outlined in
KAM section . In addition, the engagement team documents the subject matter, the name of the KPMG sampling specialist consulted, and the reference to the
working papers where the details of the consultations have been documented.
[KAM [6303] ]
Document the nature and results of consultations with KPMG sampling specialists and/or DPP-Audit and further actions taken by the engagement team, if
any.

Consider the involvement of a KPMG sampling specialist

Determine selection method [5430.6]

No selection required (e.g. testing the whole balance without choosing a
sample)
Specific Items testing
KPMG MUS
KPMG Sampling Plan
Other Sampling Techniques

Definition of population and units to be tested [5430.14]

Monetary value of total population to be tested

Definition of a difference [5430.17] [5575]

759814955.xls 1 of 21 05/31/2024
 Header

Audit evidence from other substantive procedures [5430.50]

When the audit evidence gathered from other substantive procedures directed towards the same audit objectives is assessed as “moderate”, provide details
of the other audit procedures and their results.

759814955.xls 2 of 21 05/31/2024
 Specific Item

Specific Items Testing

Client name
Period End Date

Method of Identifying Specific Items: CAATs Manual Selection

Data used [5471]

[5556]
In order to determine that the detailed lisiting of the population is the appropriate and complete basis for the test, we reconcile the detailed listing to the book
value of the population.

Required input data items

This section is used to document the description and format of the relevant client data input files to be subjected to CAATs procedures, the data source system,
and the media used to transfer the data from the client files. This information may include:
• description of the input data used to apply CAATs procedures (e.g., open invoices amount and due dates of invoices)
• field type (e.g., character, numeric, date, etc.)
• name or description of the input data file available from the client (e.g., Customer open invoices report as at 12/31/XX)
• record definition and layout expected or working paper reference, and
• field specification (e.g., client name, client number, credit limit, amount, invoice date, due date, etc.).
Input Data Files [5471]
Client filename
File format
Data source system
Method of receiving data
Client contact
Date of data

Data pre-processing [5471]

Client filename
Client’s pre –processing procedures
KPMG’s pre –processing procedures
Performed by
Date

Import data verification [5471]

Imported filename
Template file name
Procedure(s) to verify the completeness, accuracy and integrity of
data, including results
W/P Ref.
[5556]
Documentation of the selection criteria

759814955.xls 3 of 21 05/31/2024
 MUS

KPMG Monetary Unit Sampling (MUS)

Client name
Period End Date

Data used [5471]

[5556]is the appropriate and complete basis for the test, we reconcile the detailed
In order to determine that the detailed listing of population
listing to the book value of the population.
Required input data items
This section is used to document the description and format of the relevant client data input files to be subjected to sampling
procedures, the data source system, and the media used to transfer the data from the client files. This information may include:
• description of the input data used to apply an MUS technique (e.g., open invoices amount)
• field type (e.g., character, numeric, date, etc.)
• name or description of the input data file available from the client (e.g., Customer open invoices report as at 12/31/XX)
• record definition and layout expected or working paper reference, and
• field specification (e.g., client name, client number, credit limit, amount, invoice date, due date, etc.)
Input Data Files [5471]
We document in this section the source and type of data upon which we plan to apply an MUS technique. Identify the input data as
follows:
Client filename
File format
Data source system
Method of receiving data
Client contact
Date of data

Data pre-processing [5471]

Client's pre-processing procedures
KPMG's pre-processing procedures
Performed by
Date

Import data verification [5471]

Imported filename
Template file name
Procedure(s) to verify the completeness,
accuracy and integrity of data, including
results
W/P Ref. and Date

Relevant reports and workpapers [5430.57] W/P ref.

Planning Report
Extraction report
Evaluation report

759814955.xls 4 of 21 05/31/2024
Conclusion text Circumstances #
The test objective is achieved. MLAD = 0 1
The test objective may have been achieved. The following factors relative to the errors discovered may need consideration prior to 0 < MLAD < EE 2
concluding on the test objective:
WARNING! The test objective is not yet achieved as the most likely audit difference of NaN is more than the expected difference. EE <= MLAD < SMT/2 4
WARNING! The test objective is not achieved as the most likely audit difference of NaN is equal to or more than 50% of SMT. MLAD >= SMT/2 5
The guidance below will help you determine whether the test objective can be achieved by management recording an appropriate EE <= MLAD < SMT/2 8
adjustment, or whether the sample needs to be extended or additional substantive procedures performed.
#DIV/0! 0 < MLAD <= SMT/2, RoSM = H 9

Consider the sample results, the nature and cause of the identified audit differences, and their possible effect on the particular audit 0 < MLAD <= SMT/2, RoSM <> H 10
objective and on other areas of the audit. Consider whether the audit differences identified indicate:
- the existence of fraud (i.e. were the audit differences intentional?) or a failure in controls that may need to be investigated and 0 < MLAD <= SMT/2, RoSM <> H 10
reported to management and/or those charged with governance;
- whether the errors are systematic;
#DIV/0! 0 < MLAD <= SMT/2, RoSM <> H 10

You may extend the sample by increasing the expected audit difference. Alternatively, perform other substantive procedures to EE <= MLAD < SMT/2 and RoSM 11a
obtain audit evidence on the same audit objectives. =H
You may extend the sample by increasing the RoSM assessment and/or the expected audit difference. Alternatively, perform other EE <= MLAD < SMT/2 and RoSM 11b
substantive procedures to obtain audit evidence on the same audit objectives. <> H
#DIV/0! MLAD >= ADPT 13
#DIV/0! ED <= MLAD < SMT/2 14

Revise planned substantive audit procedures accordingly. Sampling may not be appropriate. You may need to test the entire MLAD >= SMT/2 15
population or request that management investigate the audit differences in order to determine an appropriate adjustment to the
financial statements.
If management performs an analysis to investigate the audit differences and the remainder of the population, and determines an MLAD >= ADPT 16
adjustment to the financial statements, obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence with respect to the adequacy of the adjustment
determined by management.
Based on the audit evidence obtained with respect to the adequacy of the adjustment determined by management, evaluate whether MLAD >= ADPT 17
management's adjustment is a more precise estimate of the total audit difference in the population than the most likely audit
difference from the test result (i.e., management's investigation is more extensive than our test). If so, document your evaluation in
the working papers, your conclusion that the test objective is achieved and that there is no further error to post to Schedule 1 of the
Summary of Audit Differences. We post the adjustment made by management as a result of our test work to Schedule 2 of the
Summary of Audit Differences.
If not, post any uncorrected element of the most likely audit difference to Schedule 1 of the Summary of Audit Differences for further MLAD >= ADPT 18
consideration.
We differentiate overstated most likely audit differences from understated most likely audit differences. The KPMG Sampling Plan is Understatements found 19
not effective in detecting unrecorded or understated audit differences; therefore it may not be appropriate to aggregate the most likely
understatement audit difference with the most likely overstatement audit difference.
We consider the nature of the understatements. Planned audit procedures, particularly audit procedures to address completeness of
transactions, may need to be extended.
After evaluating the nature and cause of both the overstatements and understatements found, we consider whether it is appropriate
to aggregate the overstatement most likely audit difference with the understatement most likely audit difference.
 FSA/SE/VSE
KPMG SAMPLING PLAN

Client Period-end W/P reference

[Client name] [Period-end] [W/P reference]
Prepared by Reviewed by
Name
Date

Population [5640]
Objective [5637]
Sampling item [5649]

Sample size calculation [5653]

W\P Reference
ROSM assessment for the audit objective ###
Extent of audit evidence from substantive procedures other than sampling
Expected audit difference in the population (1) ###
Will the sample population (after identifying individually significant amounts) be 1

Do you anticipate errors in individual items greater than or equal to their book value (e.g. existence No
errors, compliance errors)?
Adjusted sample size factor 3.2 W\P Reference Most efficient monetary
Significant misstatement threshold amount
Determined monetary amount over which items are individually significant (2) -
Value W\P Reference Number of items
Total population (3)
Individually significant items to be examined 100% (based on monetary amount above)
Total population subject to sampling - -
Number of items to be tested 1
Sample size #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
Fill out a value for SMT
Number of individually significant items to be examined 100% -
TOTAL #DIV/0!
NUMBER OF
ITEMS TO
BE TESTED

7
 FSA/SE/VSE
KPMG SAMPLING PLAN

Known audit difference, including

Audit results Book value or (5) Number of items
unexamined items (4)
Overstatement Understatement
Individually significant items examined 100% - - B
Sample items o
o
Projection of audit differences [5685] k
Overstatement Understatement
Known audit difference - -
Most Likely Audit Difference in sampled population #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

M
Most Likely Audit Difference in sample and individually significant items #DIV/0! #DIV/0!
a
Did you find errors in individual items equal to or larger than their book values? ### x
No
Audit Difference Posting Threshold

1: The total audit difference expected from the population.

2: Enter the determined amount over which items are individually significant, and hence are to be examined 100%.
It is usually efficient to examine separately the items over a given monetary amount. We refer to these items as individually significant items.
We may use any amount that is less than or equal to the significant misstatement threshold as the monetary cut-off for this purpose. The most efficient amount to use (i.e., resulting in
the lowest number of items to be examined) is the significant misstatement threshold divided by the sample size factor.

3: Book value of the total population the conclusion is intended to include. The precise definition of the population is important because a conclusion
based on a sample cannot be extended beyond the population to which the sample relates.

4: We regard the unexamined sample items (items chosen to test that we could not examine because they were not located) as audit differences.
When sampling, all items selected for testing are supported in their entirety by sufficient appropriate audit evidence or else they are treated
as audit differences. [5688]

5: The most likely audit difference in sampled population = Total audit difference in sample items x
(Total of sampled population / Total of sample items)
The total audit difference in the sample items is a monetary amount.
The total of sampled population and the total of sample items may be either monetary amounts or numbers of units. The most likely audit difference shown is the greater of that
calculated by using the value of population/sample and number in population/sample.

6: The KPMG Sampling Plan suggests a sample size less than 5. Consider whether an appropriately designed and executed substantive analytical procedure would
provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence, or whether the remaining population is deemed insignificant and we may conclude, in conjunction with our tests of operating
effectiveness of controls, that sufficient appropriate audit evidence has been obtained. If neither of these options is appropriate, we use a sample size of 5 or more items.

8
 Inventory Cutoff

INVENTORY CUT-OFF
Client name
Period End Date

Transaction Audit Value

Delivery Date
Ref. Supporting Period to be recorded Book Value (inventory to be
Unique identifier Description per Delivery Difference Issue Description W/P Ref.
No. Documentation posted correctly in the (at period end) recorded in period
Documents
correct period? under audit)

Inventory in before year-end

0.00
0.00
0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Inventory in after year-end

0.00
0.00
0.00
Total1 0.00 0.00 0.00

Inventory out before year-end

0.00
0.00
0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00

Inventory out after year-end

0.00
0.00
0.00
Total1 0.00 0.00 0.00

Comments / Explanations

759814955.xls 9 of 21 05/31/2024
 Findings

CONCLUSION AND EXPLANATION OF FINDINGS Finalized

#N/A
Client name Yes
Period End Date No

Analysis of differences Overstatement Understatement

(A) Known audit differences identified
(B) Most likely audit difference, excluding known audit differences
(C) Total (A + B) 0.00 0.00

Interpretation of results [5430.22]

After performing the test of details procedures we consider:
• the nature and cause of audit differences, including the consideration of the possible existence of fraud or error, and
• whether identified audit differences indicate possible control deficiencies, and
• document audit differences in the Summary of Audit Differences.

1. In our consideration of the nature and cause of identified audit differences, do we suspect fraud? [5430.30] Ye Unanswere
No
s d

2. Do identified differences indicate possible control deficiencies? [5430.32] Ye Unanswere

No
s d

3. Do identified differences (if any) suggest a revision of initial ROSM assessment? [5624] Ye Unanswere
No
s d

Analysis of audit differences : [5685]

Are there any exceptions that should not be projected to the relevant population? If yes, we document the additional audit procedures performed to obtain
sufficient appropriate audit evidence that the exception does not affect the remainder of the population. [5694.10]
An anomalous audit difference is an extremely rare occurrence that arises from an isolated and non-recurring event and therefore is not representative of audit
differences in the population. If we determine that an audit difference is an anomaly (i.e., including the anomalous difference in the sample causes the sample to
be unrepresentative of the population), we:
• plan and perform audit procedures to obtain additional audit evidence that provides[5694.12]
a high degree of certainty that the audit difference does not affect
the remainder of the population,
• exclude the anomalous audit differences from the projection, and
• consider whether to increase test work on the remainder of the population

Conclusion [5430.43]

759814955.xls 10 of 21 05/31/2024
 Remaining Population

Remaining Population Analysis

Client name
Period End Date

Significance of the remaining population [5425]

Monetary value of total population: 0.00
Monetary Value of the items in the population meeting the selection criteria:
Monetary Value of the remaining population: 0.00

We obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence relevant to the remaining population when that remaining population is considered
significant. We use judgment to determine whether the remaining population is considered significant. Our judgment may be based
on:
• the materiality of the remaining population
• our assessment of the risk of significant misstatement for the related audit objective
• our assessment of the risk of fraud for the related audit objective
• a combination of all of the above, and/or
• other considerations. [KAM 5425]

Perform testwork on the remaining population? Yes No Unanswered

Go back ...and revise your selection criteria and re-evaluate the remaining population

Perform testwork on the remaining population using KPMG Sampling Plan (KSP)
Perform testwork on the remaining population using MUS
Reference to other procedures performed to address the remaining population

759814955.xls 11 of 21 05/31/2024
 KSP Remainder Population

KSP Remainder Population

Client name
Period End Date
YOU NEED TO DOWNLOAD THE LATEST VERSION FROM ARO AND NOT USE THIS VERSION
Sample size calculation [5653]
There is no link back between the RoSM setting here and that in
ROSM assessment for the audit objective the Header tab. If you make a change here ensure manually
that both are consistent.

Extent of audit evidence from substantive procedures

other than sampling

(1) Expected audit difference in the population

Will the sample population (after identifying individually 1

significant amounts) be

Adjusted sample size factor 0

Significant misstatement threshold

Determined monetary amount over which items are Most efficient

individually significant (2) monetary amount #DIV/0!

(3) Book value of total population

Value of individually significant items to be examined

100% (based on monetary amount above)

Number of individually significant items to be examined

100% (based on monetary amount above)

Number of items in total population

Number of items in population (excluding individually

significant items) -

Number of items to be tested

Sample size #DIV/0!

#DIV/0!

759814955.xls 12 of 21 05/31/2024
 KSP Remainder Population

KSP Remainder Population

Number of individually significant items to be
examined 100% -

TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS TO BE TESTED

#DIV/0!

Projection of audit differences [5685]

Individually significant items examined 100%

Total audit difference, including unexamined items (4), in

individually significant items examined 100%
Over/(under)-statement

Unstratified population Book value or (5) Number of items

Total audit difference, including unexamined items (4), in

selected sample:
Over/(under)-statement:

Book value or total number of items in selected sample: #DIV/0!

Projected most likely over / (under)-statement in

sampled population #DIV/0! #DIV/0!

Total projected most likely over / (under)-statement

for the entire population - - -
-

Conclusions

759814955.xls 13 of 21 05/31/2024
 MUS Remaining Population

KPMG Monetary Unit Sampling (MUS)

Client name
Period End Date

Data used [5471]

In order to determine that the detailed listing of population is the appropriate and complete basis for the test, we reconcile the detailed
listing to the book value of the population.
Required input data items
This section is used to document the description and format of the relevant client data input files to be subjected to sampling
procedures, the data source system, and the media used to transfer the data from the client files. This information may include:
• description of the input data used to apply an MUS technique (e.g., open invoices amount)
• field type (e.g., character, numeric, date, etc.)
• name or description of the input data file available from the client (e.g., Customer open invoices report as at 12/31/XX)
• record definition and layout expected or working paper reference, and
• field specification (e.g., client name, client number, credit limit, amount, invoice date, due date, etc.)
Input Data Files [5471]
We document in this section the source and type of data upon which we plan to apply an MUS technique. Identify the input data as
follows:
Client filename
File format
Data source system
Method of receiving data
Client contact
Date of data

Data pre-processing [5471]

Client's pre-processing procedures
KPMG's pre-processing procedures
Performed by
Date

Import data verification [5471]

Imported filename
Template file name
Procedure(s) to verify the completeness,
accuracy and integrity of data, including
results
W/P Ref. and Date

Relevant reports and workpapers [5430.57] W/P ref.

Planning Report
Extraction report
Evaluation report

Planning consultation considerations [5542]

When planning to use the KPMG MUS technique, the engagement team responds to each of the following questions:
1. Is MUS planned for use in selecting sample items for performance of other than a substantive audit Yes No Unanswered
procedure

2. Is MUS planned for use in a financial statement audit that requires confidence levels different from those Yes No Unanswered
stated in the KPMG Audit Manual? (e.g., audits of federal agencies may require the use of IDEA® MUS)

3. Is MUS planned for use in selecting sample items for a complex population, such as a population Yes No Unanswered
involving multiple locations?

4. Is MUS planned for use in selecting items as a basis for a statistical conclusion expressed in a special Yes No Unanswered
report, for an attestation engagement other than a financial statement audit or for performing and reporting
on an agreed-upon procedures engagem
5. Does the expected difference in the population to be sampled exceed the engagement SMT? Yes No Unanswered

Consider the involvement of a KPMG sampling Specialist.

If we involve a KPMG sampling Specialist, the engagement team documents and includes the relevant working paper describing the nature and
results of the consultation following guidance outlined in KAM. In addition, the engagement team documents the subject matter, the name of the
KPMG sampling specialist consulted, and the reference to the working papers where the details of the consultations have been documented.
[6303]
Document the nature and results of consultations with KPMG sampling specialists and/or DPP-Audit and further actions taken by the engagement
team, if any.

759814955.xls 14 of 21 05/31/2024
Section II – Evaluation and Interpretation of Results
When evaluating the results of the sample, we respond to each of the following questions:
1. Was the original number of sample items selected for testing increased (i.e., were additional sample items
selected for testing in order to reach the desired degree of precision)?
Note: Tests planned with zero error tolerance are not increased.

2. Does the engagement team believe that certain exceptions should not be projected to the relevant
population in determining a likely misstatement amount?

3. Do any of the testing exceptions represent an overstatement or understatement greater than 100 percent
of the book value of the sample item tested?

4. Does the most likely audit difference in the population being sampled, or the allowance for sampling risk,
exceed the engagement SMT?

5. Do any of the messages generated by the KPMG MUS Routine indicate that the engagement team has to
consult a KPMG sampling specialist?

6. Have numerous exceptions, in terms of number or monetary value, been identified?

ons:

Yes No Unanswered

Yes No Unanswered

Yes No Unanswered

Yes No Unanswered

Yes No Unanswered

Yes No Unanswered
Section III – Consultation Documentation
If consultation with a KPMG sampling specialist is considered appropriate, the engagement team documents the nature and results of the
consultation following guidance outlined in KAM section [6306]. In addition, the engagement team documents in the Completion Document
the subject matter, the name of the KPMG sampling specialist consulted, and the reference to the working papers where the details of the
consultations have been documented. [6311]

Description of consultation: [Document the nature and results of consultations with KPMG sampling specialists and/or DPP-Audit and Advisory
and further actions taken by the engagement team, if any]

Consultation conclusion:

Approved by:
KPMG sampling specialist: Date :
Engagement manager: Date :
Engagement partner: Date :
The test objective is achieved.

The test objective is achieved.

Discuss and ask management to adjust the population for the total projected most likely audit
difference. Post any uncorrected element of the total projected most likely audit difference to
the Summary of Audit Differences for further consideration. We may ask management to
perform procedures to investigate the audit differences and the remainder of the population so
as to determine an appropriate adjustment to the financial statement.Obtain persuasive audit
evidence in respect of the adjustment determined by management.

Consider the nature and cause of the identified audit differences and whether they indicate the
possible existence of fraud or error. Also consider whether identified audit differences indicate
a failure in controls that may need to be investigated and reported to management and/or those
charged with governance.

The test objective is achieved at the current RoSM assessment.

WARNING!! As the total projected most likely audit difference is more than, or equal to,
SMT, consider if audit differences in significant items indicate that the initially assessed
RoSM is too low. If yes, amend the input for the RoSM to a higher level, set the level of
expected audit difference in population to more than one-third but less than SMT and re-
calculate the sample size. Select and test the additional sample items and re-evaluate the
results.

If the RoSM assessment is appropriate, discuss and ask management to adjust the population
for the total projected most likely audit difference. Post any uncorrected element of the total
projected most likely audit difference to the Summary of Audit Differences for further
consideration.

You may ask management to perform procedures to investigate the audit differences and the
remainder of the population so as to determine an appropriate adjustment to the financial
statement.Obtain persuasive audit evidence in respect of the adjustment determined by
management.

Consider the nature and cause of the identified audit differences and whether they indicate the
possible existence of fraud or
error. Also consider whether identified audit differences indicate a failure in controls that may
need to be investigated and
reported to management and/or those charged with governance.
WARNING!! The test objective is not achieved.

If there are audit differences in sample items that are arising from isolated events, obtain
sufficient audit evidence that the audit differences need not be projected to the population and
include them as anomalous differences.

Projected most likely audit difference in sampled population is higher than anticipated. We
need to undertake further work. We:

- Consider whether this indicates that the initially assessed RoSM is too low. If yes, amend the
input for the RoSM to a higher level; and
- Amend the input for the expected difference to more than one-third but less than SMT and
re-calculate the sample size. Select and test the additional sample items and re-evaluate the
results.

OR alternatively,

- perform other substantive audit procedures on the population before concluding on the test.
You may ask management to perform procedures to investigate the audit differences and the
remainder of the population so as to determine an appropriate adjustment to the financial
statement.Obtain persuasive audit evidence in respect of the adjustment determined by
management.

Consider the nature and cause of the identified audit differences and whether they indicate the
possible existence of fraud or
error. Also consider whether identified audit differences indicate a failure in controls that may
need to be investigated and
reported to management and/or those charged with governance.

WARNING!! The test objective is not achieved.

If there are audit differences in sample items that are arising from isolated events, obtain
sufficient audit evidence that the audit differences need not be projected to the population and
include them as anomalous differences.

The audit differences discovered are not acceptable as the net projected most likely audit
difference in the sampled population is more than, or equal to, SMT.

Discuss the identified audit differences with management.

Substantive sampling may not be appropriate to identify the rate of difference in the
population. You may need to test the entire population or ask management to perform
procedures to investigate the audit differences and the remainder of the population so as to
determine an appropriate adjustment to the financial statement. Obtain persuasive audit
evidence in respect of the adjustment determined by management.
 When no differences are found.

When MLE < 1/3 SMT and Total MLE < SMT

OR

Expected error = SMT and MLE < SMT and Total MLE <
SMT

When MLE < 1/3 SMT and Total MLE >= SMT

OR

Expected error = SMT and MLE < SMT and Total MLE >=
SMT
EE < 1/3 SMT and SMT>MLE >= 1/3 SMT

MLE >=SMT