Fraud Severity
Classify potential fraud severity from supplied conduct indicators.
Description
Potential fraud severity combines supplied conduct indicators through fixed weights.
Potential fraud severity combines supplied conduct indicators through fixed weights. The output terms are screening labels.1
Classify potential fraud severity from supplied conduct indicators.
When to use Fraud Severity
Use this tool to classify potential fraud severity from supplied conduct indicators.
Prepare the documented facts, aligned totals or expected/observed evidence labels requested. Choose applicable requirements and thresholds separately before interpreting a planning screen.
How to use Fraud Severity and understand its results
- Prepare the documented facts, aligned totals or expected/observed evidence labels requested. Choose applicable requirements and thresholds separately before interpreting a planning screen.
- Enter intentionalMisstatement, managementInvolved, concealmentEvidence, materialImpact, repeatedConduct using the field table and calculation rules, then run the tool.
- Read severityScore, severity, immediateEscalation. The explanation below defines the units, signs, ordering and any flags or placeholder values.
- If the tool reports an input issue, correct the values and run it again. Apply the stated assumptions when interpreting a successfully returned result.
| Input field | Meaning | Value type; see rules below | Requirement |
|---|---|---|---|
| intentionalMisstatement | Intentional misstatement | boolean | Required |
| managementInvolved | Management involved | boolean | Required |
| concealmentEvidence | Concealment evidence | boolean | Required |
| materialImpact | Material impact | boolean | Required |
| repeatedConduct | Repeated conduct | boolean | Required |
Enter booleans; ≥6 fraud-risk, ≥3 gross-negligence, otherwise error-like. Escalation if management AND intentional, or score≥6.
score=3intentional+2management+3concealment+2material+repeated Units, indexing, boundary conditions and exceptional cases are defined in the calculation rules above.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| severityScore | Severity score | integer; minimum: 0 |
| severity | Severity | string; one of "error-like", "gross-negligence", "fraud-risk" |
| immediateEscalation | Immediate escalation | boolean |
{
"input": {
"intentionalMisstatement": true,
"managementInvolved": false,
"concealmentEvidence": true,
"materialImpact": false,
"repeatedConduct": false
},
"output": {
"severityScore": 6,
"severity": "fraud-risk",
"immediateEscalation": true
}
}Limitations and assumptions
No fraud, negligence, intent or legal conclusion is established from this heuristic.
Numeric inputs, where present, must be finite. Follow the calculation-specific rules for overflow, underflow and exceptional cases. Missing required fields, extra fields, wrong value types and violations of the calculation rules are input errors. A successfully returned false flag is an evaluated outcome; its meaning is explained above.
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use Sensitive-Matter Routing: Route sensitive audit matters from supplied indicators. For a complementary task, use Deficiency Severity: Classify control-deficiency severity from likelihood and potential magnitude.
References
-
Fraud Severity — tool.io
Similar or alternative tools
- Sensitive-Matter Routing
Route sensitive audit matters from supplied indicators.
- Deficiency Severity
Classify control-deficiency severity from likelihood and potential magnitude.