Compilation Review Audit Assurance Level Ladder
Look up the conventional assurance level for financial-statement preparation, compilation, review, and audit engagements. The engagement type determines the assurance category; an arbitrary evidence score does not change one engagement into another.
Description
Preparation, compilation, review and audit engagements carry different assurance and reporting conventions.
Preparation, compilation, review and audit engagements carry different assurance and reporting conventions.1
This tool returns a fixed educational mapping for an exact engagement token without issuing a practitioner report.
When to use Compilation Review Audit Assurance Level Ladder
Use this tool to obtain a fixed educational mapping for an exact engagement token without issuing a practitioner report.
How to use Compilation Review Audit Assurance Level Ladder and how it works
- Establish the observations, units, reference context and assumptions described below.
- Enter engagementType and run the tool.
- Read assuranceLevel, practitionerReportIssued using the meanings and sign conventions below.
- Correct any rejected inputs and rerun; independently review the result under the stated scope.
| Input field | Meaning | Value type | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| engagementType | Exact audit, review, compilation or preparation token. | string | Required; exact supported token; branch conditions below |
Choose one exact case-sensitive engagementType token: audit, review, compilation or preparation. Return reasonable assurance and report=true for audit, limited assurance and report=true for review, and no_assurance for both other tokens. The report flag is true for compilation and false for preparation. This is a fixed educational mapping; no report is generated and jurisdiction-specific engagement requirements are not assessed.
audit=(reasonable,true); review=(limited,true); compilation=(no_assurance,true); preparation=(no_assurance,false) Use the stated ordering, units and branch conditions.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| assuranceLevel | Fixed reasonable, limited or no_assurance educational mapping. | string |
| practitionerReportIssued | Expected report convention for the token; no report is actually issued by the tool. | boolean |
{
"input": {
"engagementType": "review"
},
"output": {
"assuranceLevel": "limited",
"practitionerReportIssued": true
}
}Limitations and assumptions
The result summarizes supplied audit observations under the stated arithmetic or checklist rule. It does not inspect underlying documents, select sufficient audit evidence, make a professional assurance judgment or establish regulatory compliance. Empty or all-true input can describe only the recorded assertions.
Supply explicit values and dense aligned arrays. Unexpected fields, wrong types and nonfinite scalar values are rejected; fixed-token, alignment and other branch conditions are explained above. A successful false flag, empty match list or unknown-evidence list differs from an input error. Extremely large inputs or nonrepresentable results may fail.
AICPA distinguishes engagement scope and assurance across compilation, review and audit. This tool provides an educational token mapping; current applicable standards and the actual engagement govern professional reporting.2
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use Audit Strategy vs Audit Plan Scope Timing Distinction for a related operation: Audit planning can distinguish overall scope from specified procedures and the communication of timing.
Use Agreed-Upon Procedures Specific Findings Format Lookup for a related operation: A findings-format review can record whether selected components have been documented for each procedure.
References
-
AICPA & CIMA: compilation, review and audit distinctions — AICPA & CIMA
Similar or alternative tools
- Audit Strategy vs Audit Plan Scope Timing Distinction
Audit planning can distinguish overall scope from specified procedures and the communication of timing.
- Agreed-Upon Procedures Specific Findings Format Lookup
A findings-format review can record whether selected components have been documented for each procedure.