Auditors' heuristics
The Audit Report must include a judgment, or opinion, about each
of the elements of the TEAC system, including the components of
4.0. The auditors use the following heuristics to determine their
opinion of the elements of the TEAC system (1.0
– 4.0) as they are presented in the Inquiry Brief. The
following paragraphs provide guidelines auditors use in making their
judgments.
1. A target is said to be verified when it is confirmed
by at least 75% of the probes assigned to it. In practice this means
that if one probe fails to confirm a target, at least three other
probes would need to yield positive results to verify it.
2. An element (1.0 – 4.0), or component of
4.0, receives a clean opinion if at least 90% of its targets are
confirmed. If more than 10% of the targets are not confirmed, the
element (or a component of 4.0) cannot receive a clean opinion and
must receive some other opinion, depending on the circumstances
described below.
3. An element, etc., is given a qualified opinion when at least
75% of its targets are confirmed. An element that would otherwise
receive a clean opinion is also given a qualified opinion if more
than 25% of the targets reveal misstatements of any kind (trivial
and consequential).
4. An element is given an adverse opinion if more
than 25% of its targets cannot be confirmed. An element is also
given an adverse opinion if more than 25% of the targets cannot
be verified owing to the fact that the targets could not be confirmed
for any reason (including disclaimer).
5. An element is given a disclaimer opinion if more than 25% of
the targets associated with it can not be verified because of missing
data, limited access to information and informants, and/or evidence
that the findings reported in the Inquiry Brief are not genuine.
These five guidelines are heuristics for formulating an audit opinion
about each element and component of 4.0
in the TEAC system. They are not algorithms or rules, because a
simple counting of outcomes of probes may be misleading with regard
to the trustworthiness of the Brief. Some audit tasks may
be more revealing than others. For example, some may have targeted
only minor points, and some may be merely following up on other
audit tasks on a single point. The audit team knows that they are
not to treat the heuristic as an algorithm or rule that can be mechanically
applied. If the findings suggest anomalies that make the heuristic
unworkable, the auditors will rely on their good judgments, explaining
in their audit report the difficulties they experienced.
Heuristics, by definition and design, only guide
decision-making. Because TEAC cannot predict or accommodate all
possible outcomes and circumstances, the auditors need to make judgments
when the findings are complex and lacking in a regular pattern.
When there is doubt, the auditors will render a lower and more conservative
audit opinion rather than a higher audit opinion to alert the Accreditation
Panel and the Accreditation Committee to possible dangers in interpreting
the Inquiry Brief or Inquiry Brief Proposal as
trustworthy and reliable. Should a TEAC auditing team make errors
in judgment in these matters, the lower and more conservative audit
opinions always can be adjusted in the process that requires the
mutual acceptance of the Audit Report or through the TEAC appeals
process.
Return to AUDITORS - Judging
|
