🔥 Written representation: evidence, substitute, date and scope The auditor of PQR Ltd.

🔥 Written representation: evidence, substitute, date and scope

The auditor of PQR Ltd. obtains written representations from management stating that:

“All transactions with related parties have been disclosed to the auditor, all subsequent events requiring adjustment or disclosure have been appropriately accounted for, and management has provided the auditor with all relevant information.”

The representations are dated 15 May 2026, whereas the auditor’s report is expected to be dated 28 May 2026.

The audit manager states:

“Since management has given comprehensive written representations covering the major areas of the audit, the auditor may rely upon those representations as sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the matters covered by them. Further, because the representations are dated before the auditor’s report, they need not be updated unless the auditor identifies contradictory evidence.”

Which ONE of the following is most appropriate?

A. The manager’s conclusion is inappropriate because written representations are necessary audit evidence in specified circumstances but do not replace other audit evidence that the auditor reasonably expects to be available; representations should also be obtained as of an appropriate date close to the auditor’s report.

B. The manager’s conclusion is substantially correct because written representations constitute sufficient appropriate audit evidence whenever management specifically confirms the completeness and accuracy of the information supplied during the audit.

C. The manager’s conclusion is correct regarding the date but not regarding evidential value, because representations may constitute sufficient evidence but can never be obtained after the date on which the auditor completes substantive audit procedures.

D. The manager’s conclusion is inappropriate only because the representation must necessarily be dated on the same day as the auditor’s report; otherwise, however comprehensive, it cannot constitute audit evidence for any purpose.