New SB#2 LA

Prindev requested the replacement of two of the audit team members because they had worked for the company’s biggest competitor. Is this acceptable?

• Yes, this is a valid reason to request the replacement of audit team members

• No, Prindev does not have a valid reason to request the replacement of the audit team members since the auditors are not working for their competitor anymore

• No, Prindev cannot request the replacement of the audit team members under any circumstance

The auditors reviewed previous annual reports and requested information about the integrity of Prindev before accepting the audit mandate. Is this acceptable?

• Yes, steps in accepting an audit mandate may include reviewing previous annual reports and requesting information about the integrity of the potential auditee

• No, the integrity of the auditee should be considered by the certification body before accepting the audit, thus, auditors cannot request such information

• No, the auditors should not have access in previous annual reports of the auditee due to independence and due diligence principles

Which of the following approaches did AuditOrg utilize during the audit?

• Agreed-upon procedure

• Top-down

• Bottom-up

Into which category does the risk identified during the audit belong?

• IT and communication

• Operational

• Regulatory

Is the AuditOrg’s decision about the postponement of the stage 2 audit acceptable?

• Yes, AuditOrg may consider the postponement or cancellation of stage 2 considering the areas of concern identified during stage 1

• No, AuditOrg is required to proceed with the stage 2 audit according to the audit plan regardless of the findings in stage 1, as these stages are independent

• No, any issues identified in stage 1 should be addressed during the stage 2 audit and postponing stage 2 can be seen as non-compliance with auditing procedures