An Investigation of Auditor Perceptions about Subsequent Events and Factors That Influence This Audit Task
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Events that occur after the balance sheet date but before the audit report is signed and dated (subsequent events) may have a material effect on the financial statements and their users. New SEC reporting requirements reduce the time between the balance sheet and report dates, limiting the availability of subsequent event evidence. Professional groups, including the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants (CICA) and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), question whether sufficient evidence will exist if subsequent event information is not available. They fear that decreased availability of subsequent event evidence may lower the quality of both audit judgments and financial reporting. Scant prior research examines auditors' perceptions about subsequent events. Our study examines how auditors search for and discover subsequent event evidence and factors that influence this process. Responses from auditors representing all Big 4 firms and one national firm suggest that subsequent event evidence is important. Auditors generally follow procedures recommended by audit standards; however, recommended procedures uncover subsequent event evidence with low frequency. Implications for future research are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it