Positive vs Negative Confirmation Type Selector Lookup
Select a positive or negative external-confirmation approach from supplied risk, dispute, control-effectiveness, and small-balance facts.
Description
Positive and negative confirmations differ in how responses support an audit procedure.
Positive and negative confirmations differ in how responses support an audit procedure. This implementation applies a narrow boolean routing rule.1
The returned values include Confirmation method, Selection rationale. The How section below explains the calculation, input rules and interpretation.
When to use Positive vs Negative Confirmation Type Selector Lookup
Use Positive vs Negative Confirmation Type Selector Lookup when you need to evaluate the supplied records under the calculation and evidence rules below. The small-balance-positive branch is the literal implementation. It does not establish standards-compliant use of negative confirmations or perform a confirmation.
Prepare source-backed observations and the applicable engagement policy before entering facts. Use consistent monetary units and periods. Supply all boolean evidence flags explicitly, and treat a successful screen as a reason to continue professional review.
How to use Positive vs Negative Confirmation Type Selector Lookup and understand its results
- Prepare source-backed observations and the applicable engagement policy before entering facts. Use consistent monetary units and periods. Supply all boolean evidence flags explicitly, and treat a successful screen as a reason to continue professional review.
- Enter controlEffective, disputedBalance, highRisk, smallBalance using the field table and calculation rules, then run the tool.
- Read method, rationale. 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| controlEffective | Control effective | boolean | Required |
| disputedBalance | Balance disputed | boolean | Required |
| highRisk | High risk | boolean | Required |
| smallBalance | Small balance | boolean | Required |
Validate four booleans. Apply risk/dispute first, then ineffective control, then small balance, each returning positive with its rationale. Only effective controls, low risk, no dispute and not-small balance returns negative.
positive if highRisk OR disputed OR not effectiveControl OR smallBalance Units, indexing, boundary conditions and exceptional cases are defined in the calculation rules above.
| Output field | Meaning | Value type |
|---|---|---|
| method | Confirmation method | string; one of "negative", "positive" |
| rationale | Selection rationale | string; one of "effective_control_and_low_risk", "high_risk_or_dispute", "ineffective_control", "small_balance" |
{
"input": {
"controlEffective": true,
"disputedBalance": false,
"highRisk": false,
"smallBalance": false
},
"output": {
"method": "negative",
"rationale": "effective_control_and_low_risk"
}
}Limitations and assumptions
The small-balance-positive branch is the literal implementation. It does not establish standards-compliant use of negative confirmations or perform a confirmation.
Numeric inputs, where present, must be finite. Follow the calculation-specific rules for overflow, underflow and exceptional cases. Missing fields without a declared default, extra fields, wrong value types and violations of the calculation rules are input errors.
Alternative or Complementary methods
Use External Confirmation Process Control Checklist: External confirmation depends on control of requests and responses. Independence, verified addresses, authorization, response tracking and resolved exceptions support the declared process. For a complementary task, use Electronic Confirmation Direct Source Reliability Checker: Electronic confirmation reliability depends on source and process evidence. A channel name alone is not proof of reliability.
References
Similar or alternative tools
- External Confirmation Process Control Checklist
External confirmation depends on control of requests and responses. Independence, verified addresses, authorization, response tracking and resolved exceptions support the declared process.
- Electronic Confirmation Direct Source Reliability Checker
Electronic confirmation reliability depends on source and process evidence. A channel name alone is not proof of reliability.