IIA-CIA-Part2 Leak Questions

A draft internal audit report citing deficient conditions should be reviewed with relevant stakeholders to ensure accuracy, address concerns, and plan corrective actions. This includes the client manager and her superior (Option 1) to inform them of the findings and obtain their perspective. It should also be reviewed with anyone who may object to the report’s validity (Option 2) to address potential disagreements or misunderstandings early in the process. Finally, it should include anyone required to take action (Option 3) so they are aware of their responsibilities and can begin planning remediation efforts. While it may be beneficial to review with those who receive the final report (Option 4), it is not essential for the draft stage. References:

The IIA’s International Standards for the Professional Practice of Internal Auditing (Standards), Standard 2440 - Disseminating Results.

In internal auditing, the engagement workpapers typically contain more detailed descriptions of observations than the preliminary observation document because workpapers serve as the primary evidence and record of the audit procedures and findings. Similarly, a preliminary observation document generally contains more detail than the final audit report, as it serves as an initial, comprehensive documentation of the findings before they are summarized for final reporting.

Comprehensive and Detailed Explanation:

A risk matrix maps risks based on likelihood and impact. To identify risks at the process level, the auditor should consider possible scenarios (B) that may threaten the achievement of objectives. Examples include fraud scenarios, compliance failures, or operational breakdowns. Possible controls (C) are identified after risks, as mitigations. Possible tests (A) and samples (D) relate to audit procedures, not risk identification. According to Standard 2210.A1, objectives of an engagement must consider risks, and this starts with scenario analysis. Thus, the correct choice is Option B.

After management has implemented an action plan to improve controls, the most appropriate follow-up action for the auditor is to perform retesting. Retesting involves verifying that the new procedures are effective in addressing the control deficiencies identified during the initial audit.

IIA Standard 2500 – Monitoring Progress:

This standard requires the internal audit activity to monitor and ensure that management actions have been implemented and are working as intended. Retesting is a critical component of this process because it confirms that the new controls effectively mitigate the risks.

Importance of Retesting:

Retesting allows the auditor to verify that the specific control activities, which were previously found to be deficient, have been corrected. This hands-on approach provides direct evidence of the effectiveness of the new procedures.

IIA Practice Advisory 2500-1:

The advisory emphasizes the need for follow-up activities to include retesting when necessary to confirm that management’s actions have resolved the issues identified.

Option A (Conduct another audit): Conducting a completely new audit might be excessive; follow-up and retesting are sufficient to confirm the effectiveness of the corrective actions.

Option B (Ensure procedures are documented): Documentation is important, but it does not confirm that the procedures are actually effective.

Option D (Analyze procedures and report to management): Analysis is useful, but retesting provides direct verification of effectiveness.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?Conclusion: Option C is correct because retesting confirms that the new procedures effectively address the previously identified deficiencies, ensuring that the risks have been mitigated as intended, in line with IIA guidance.