• We are pleased to announce that the winner of our Feedback Prize Draw for the Winter 2024-25 session and winning £150 of gift vouchers is Zhao Liang Tay. Congratulations to Zhao Liang. If you fancy winning £150 worth of gift vouchers (from a major UK store) for the Summer 2025 exam sitting for just a few minutes of your time throughout the session, please see our website at https://www.acted.co.uk/further-info.html?pat=feedback#feedback-prize for more information on how you can make sure your name is included in the draw at the end of the session.
  • Please be advised that the SP1, SP5 and SP7 X1 deadline is the 14th July and not the 17th June as first stated. Please accept out apologies for any confusion caused.

Introducing data and adjustments

L

Logarithm n Blues

Member
I may be overthinking this idea that the data and other things should be introduced before they are used/talked about in the audit trail.
Does the following in the audit trail seem okay:
  • Data section - just states what data we have and where it comes from.
  • Assumptions - including something like "Data is accurate subject to the adjustments detailed later in this document"
  • Raw data worksheet - including something like "this sheet has just raw data of x type.. some checks.." (these checks may involve the assumptions.)
  • Adjusted data worksheet - detailing the adjustments made.
It feels like this isn't ideal since the adjustments are refered to in the assumptions before I've actually said what these assumptions are?
But I think it's better than discussing the two data worksheets before the assumptions as it feels like quite often the assumptions are relevant to the checks?

None of this is fixed of course - the exam might not require all these steps.
 
Audit trail marking schemes usually have marks for using a logical order, one of which is for something like "the methodology is described in a logical order i.e. nothing is introduced which would require that the reader has read ahead". I think most model solutions therefore do all the data explanation before the assumptions section. I think the approach you've used is probably fine though - you've signposted to a bit of information that's explained later, but I'm not sure that means that you need to have read that part in order to understand the document.

You're right that the actual format of your answer might need to change, depending on the steps required in the exam paper. The Examiners will give credit for any reasonable approach.
 
Back
Top