Audit Assertions

Audit assertions are the foundation of everything you do on an engagement, but ask ten auditors to explain them clearly and you'll get ten different answers. Meredith Mednick, CPA cuts through the noise with a plain-language walkthrough of the full framework: transaction-level and balance-level assertions, each anchored to a concrete example and connected directly to audit risk and procedure design. Whether you're building the foundation or filling in the gaps, this episode makes the framework click.

Connect with Meredith

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/meredithmednick/

Earn CPE for Listening to This Podcast
https://www.earmark.app/

This podcast is a production of Earmark Media

Creators and Guests

Host

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA

Meredith Mednick is a CPA, CA who has spent over 20 years in audit, accounting, banking, and finance — which means she's seen things. A lot of things. Now, instead of keeping all that hard-earned wisdom locked in a boardroom, she's bringing it to the podcast world to have the conversations that accountants actually want to be having.

What is Audit Fundamentals?

Audit Fundamentals explores the principles, standards, and real-world practices behind accounting and auditing. Each episode breaks down essential audit topics — including risk assessment, internal controls, audit evidence, financial reporting, and professional standards — through practical conversations and clear explanations that make complex concepts easier to understand.

Attention: This is a machine-generated transcript. As such, there may be spelling, grammar, and accuracy errors throughout. Thank you for your understanding!

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:00:00] Okay. I want to take you back. It's my first week at the firm. I've got a brand new laptop bag, you know. Still has that new laptop bag smell. My business casual game is very serious. I showed up on day one in an outfit I planned out two weeks in advance. I'm ready. Or at least I think I'm ready. Then my senior, this incredibly confident third year named Dana, drops a binder on my desk. She says, we're starting our audit with revenue. Pull the assertions. And I just smiled, nodded, wrote it down, and then immediately googled audit assertions under the table because I had absolutely no idea what she was talking about. Does that sound familiar? If you just nodded, maybe even laughed a little bit. This episode is for you. Welcome to Audit Fundamentals. I'm your host, Meredith Mednick, CPA. And today we're diving into one of the most foundational concepts in all of public accounting audit assertions. And I promise you, by the time we're done today, you'll never blank on that question. I was asked again. But before we get into the nuts and bolts, I want to pose something to you, a question that I think a lot of accountants don't hear early enough. Here it goes. If an auditor doesn't know what they're trying to prove, how do they know when they've proven it? Think about that for a second, because that is really what audit assertions are all about.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:01:40] They are the answer to that question. They are the what behind every single procedure you will perform on an audit engagement. And when you truly understand them, not just memorize them for the exam, but understand them, you become a fundamentally better auditor. Faster, more precise and more valuable to your team. All right, let's get started and build this from the ground up. So audit assertions. What are they. At their most basic level, audit assertions are representations made by management implicit or explicit about the financial statements and the underlying transactions and balances. When a company's CFO signs off on those financial statements and hands them to investors, creditors, regulators, and the public. They are essentially saying everything in these statements is fairly stated, but fairly stated is a pretty big umbrella. So over time, the accounting profession got very specific about what exactly management is asserting when they put those financials out into the world and those specifics, those are your audit assertions. As an auditor, our job isn't to assume management is wrong. However, our job also isn't to just take their word for it. Our job is to gather sufficient, appropriate audit evidence to support or challenge what management is asserting. Think of it this way. Imagine you're buying a used car. The seller says this car is in great shape. It runs perfectly, the mileage is accurate, and I own it free and clear. Everything has been disclosed. A smart buyer doesn't just say great and hand over the money.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:03:29] A smart buyer takes it to a mechanic, checks the Carfax, verifies the title. They're not calling the seller a liar. They're just independently verifying the claims being made. That's you. You are the mechanic. You are the Carfax. Check and audit assertions are the specific claims you're verifying. Here's something that tripped me up a lot. So I want to address it head on. Audit assertions are grouped into two main categories based on what they relate to. The first category is assertions about classes of transactions and events, the activity that flows through the income statement during the period we're talking revenue, expenses, payroll, cost of goods sold, etc. the second category is assertions about account balances and disclosures, the ending balances on the balance sheet, plus how everything is presented and disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. The reason this distinction matters is that some assertions appear in both categories, but mean slightly different things depending on context, and some are unique to one category. We'll walk through all of them today, and I'll flag which category each one lives in. Let's pause for a question. Why does it matter that assertions are separated by transactions versus balances? That's because the nature of the error we're looking for is different. A transaction assertion is about what happened during the year. Did the activity get recorded correctly? A balance assertion is about what exists at a point in time.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:05:06] Is the number on the balance sheet right? The risk profile is different. The procedures are different. That's why the framework separates that. Keep those two things in mind as we go through each assertion, always ask yourself, am I looking at activity or am I looking at a balance? All right, let's get started with transaction level assertions. The ones that relate to classes of transactions and events during the period. There are five of them, and I want to introduce each one with a scenario, because when you understand the problem, an assertion is trying to solve, the definition sticks forever. Let's go. Our first assertion is number one occurrence. Think about it. You're on an engagement auditing revenue. You're looking at a sales transaction recorded on December 15th for $500,000. It's sitting right there in the revenue ledger. But here's the question I want you to sit with. Did that sale actually happen or not? Does the invoice exist? We'll get to that. But did the underlying economic event, the transfer of goods or services to a customer actually occur? That is the occurrence. Assertion occurrence asks did the transactions that were recorded actually happen and were they real transactions that belonged to this entity? This is primarily a management bias toward overstatement assertion. Think about it. If management is under pressure to hit revenue targets, what are they tempted to do? Record sales that didn't happen. Record sales early, or maybe record sales for fictitious customers.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:06:50] The occurrence assertion is your guard against all of that? The primary way you can test occurrence is through vouching. And I want you to really understand this word because it trips people up. Vouching means you're going backward from the recorded amount to the supporting documentation. You start with what's in the ledger and you trace it back to the invoice. The shipping document, the customer contract, or the proof of delivery. You're essentially asking, okay, this $500,000 is in the books. Show me the evidence that proved it happened. I often see accountants make an error with occurrence, and that's confusing it with existence. Occurrence is a transaction assertion. Existence is a balance assertion, and we'll get to that shortly. But for now, occurrence is about activity. Existence is about balances. Here's a question. You're vouching a sales transaction and you find an invoice. But the invoice date is in the next fiscal year. Which assertion problem does that raise? If you're thinking cut off, you're right. And we're going to talk about cutoff in a minute. But the fact that you're already asking that question and noticing that it's in a different period means you're already thinking like an auditor. Let's flip to our second transaction level assertion completeness. Here's a new scenario. You're on the same revenue engagement. But now instead of asking whether what's recorded is real, you're asking is everything that should be recorded actually recorded? Are there sales that happened that aren't in the ledger? That is completeness.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:08:34] Completeness asks have all transactions that should have been recorded actually been recorded? Are there missing entries omissions? Is anything that happened during the period not showing up in the books? Here's the interesting thing about completeness, occurrence and completeness are essentially mirror image assertions. Occurrence guards against recording things that didn't happen. It's an overstatement. Risk completeness. Guards against not recording things that did happen. It's an understatement. Risk. Together they bracket the ledger. Occurrence says nothing fake in here. And completeness says nothing real is missing. The procedure for completeness is tracing. And again, direction here matters. Tracing is the opposite of vouching. You start with the source document and trace it forward into the ledger. You start with something like a shipping log, a sales order, the contract, and then you make sure it shows up in revenue. Vouching goes backward from the ledger to the document. Tracing goes forward from the document to the ledger. Remember that it'll serve you very well as an auditor. A mistake I commonly see is focusing your energy on the overstatement risk. But completeness is where you find understated liabilities, and understated liabilities are just as material, just as problematic and frankly, just as consequential for the people who certified those financials. Always test for completeness on your liability and expense accounts. Let's pause for a question. Your testing accounts payable completeness. What source document would you start with to trace forward.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:10:22] Are you thinking about vendor invoices. Purchase orders. Receiving reports. That's right. Anything that represents an obligation that should have been recorded, you should be looking at. Let's move on to the third transaction level assertion which is accuracy. Here's our third scenario. The transaction happened occurrence. It was recorded completeness. Check. But now you're looking at the dollar amount in the ledger and you're asking is the number right? That, my friends, is accuracy. Accuracy asks were the amounts in other data relating to recorded transactions recorded appropriately? Sounds simple. But accuracy failures are more common than you'd think. They could be incorrect prices applied to quantities, exchange rate errors on foreign currency transactions. Mathematical errors in complex calculations, a typo in a spreadsheet. Intercompany eliminations that don't get captured correctly. Testing accuracy often involves recalculation and reperformance. You take the underlying data like unit price, quantity, terms, and you recalculate the recorded amount yourself. If it matches, great. If it doesn't, you found a potential error. For more complex transactions, you might also use analytical procedures like comparing the recorded amounts to the expectations you've built independently. A subtle accuracy trap involves foreign currency transactions. A lot of accountants know to look at the exchange rate, but we don't always verify which rate was used. The spot rate, the average rate, the forward rate. The accounting standards are very specific about which rate applies and when, and using the wrong one is an accuracy misstatement, even if everything else checks out.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:12:18] So make sure your client and you are using the correct rates. Here's a question. If a company records a sale in euros at the wrong exchange rate, which assertion is violated? Are you thinking accuracy? You'd be correct because the dollar amount recorded doesn't correctly reflect the transaction. The fourth assertion we're going to talk about for transaction level assertions is cut off. Picture this it's December 30th. A company ships $2 million worth of inventory to a customer. The physical goods left the warehouse on December 30th, but the invoice doesn't get processed until January 3rd of the New Year. What period does that revenue belong in? That's where cutoff comes in. Cutoff asks have transactions been recorded in the correct accounting period? This one is deceptively simple in theory, a notoriously tricky in practice period. Close is always chaotic. Transactions are flying in from every direction, some straddling year end, and everyone is under pressure to get the numbers out and fast. Cutoff errors usually come down to two problems recording something in the wrong period deliberately, maybe to manage earnings, or recording it in the wrong period by accident because of timing lags in the system for cut off testing, you get very close to the period end date, usually a window of several days before and after, and scrutinize the transactions that fall in that window. We're looking for anything recorded after year end that should have been in the prior period, or anything that's snuck into the current period that belonged in the next one.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:14:06] A classic cutoff mistake is only testing in one direction. You test whether things recorded after year end should have been in the prior period. However, you've missed testing whether things recorded before year end should have been in the next period. Cutoff works both ways. Revenue can be pulled in early or expenses can be pushed out late. Don't forget to always test in both directions. Let's take time for another question. Your testing revenue cut off and you find a large sale recorded on December 31st. The shipping document is dated January 2nd. What does this tell you? To me, it's saying that both occurrence and cut off are at risk. The revenue may have been recorded before the earnings process was complete. That's where the flag and checking it out. Let's move to our fifth and final transaction level assertion classification. Here's our scenario. A company makes a payment to a vendor. The transaction happened. It was recorded in the right period. The amount is correct. But you're looking at the account it was coded to and something feels off. It's in operating expenses. But based on what you're reading in the contract, it looks like it should have been capitalized as a fixed asset. Was it recorded in the right account? That is classification. Classification asks have transactions been recorded in the appropriate accounts? Classification errors can run the gamut from minor, maybe an expense coded to the wrong cost center to highly material like a capital expenditure being expensed entirely in the current period, which could artificially deflate net income and inflated in future years through reduced depreciation charges.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:15:59] That's not small. Classification is also where you catch things like operating versus non-operating misclassification, interest expense, buried in cost of goods sold, a related party, transactions not properly identified and disclosed to test classification. Typically have to read the underlying documents and contracts associated with the accounts, and amounts to understand the nature of the transaction and then compare it to where it was recorded. This is one of those assertions where your professional judgment really kicks in. A common classification mistake is capitalization versus expense decisions. In theory, we know the rules. If an expenditure extends the useful life of an asset or adds new capability, it should be capitalized. If it just maintains the existing asset, it should be expensed. But applying that rule to actual transactions requires judgment. When in doubt, document your reasonings thoroughly and if you have questions, escalate it to your senior. Here's a question to think about. A company pays $50,000 to repaint the exterior of their office building. Should that be expensed or capitalized? Are. Bit of a trick question. Generally, routine maintenance that doesn't extend the useful life of the asset should be expensed. That paint job is probably an operating expense. However, if that paint was part of a major renovation that extended the building's life, it's a different story.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:17:36] Context always matters. Don't forget, always read the underlying documentation and ask your client. Before we move on to balance level assertions, I want you to remember these five questions for every transaction. Did it happen? That's occurrence. Did we capture everything? That's completeness. Are the numbers right? We're talking accuracy. Is it in the right period cut off. Is it in the right account? Classification five questions. Every revenue transaction. Every expense, every journal entry you look at. Those five questions should be running in the background. Now let's shift gears to assertions about account balances and disclosures. These are the ones that relate to what's sitting on the balance sheet at period end and how it's all presented in the financials. We've got five main ones here. We'll go through the same format as we did with transaction level assertions. Our first assertion is existence. You're on an inventory engagement. The clients balance sheet shows $10 million in inventory. The warehouse manager gives you a printout showing all the inventory by SKU and location. Everything looks great on paper. Is that inventory actually, physically, there is the $10 million of inventory sitting in that warehouse, or is it a number in a spreadsheet that nobody's verified against? Reality? That is existence. Existence asks do the assets, liabilities and equity interests actually exist at a given date? This is probably the most intuitive assertion once you understand it.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:19:26] Basically you're asking, is this real? Does it exist? But it's also one that gets violated. In some of the most famous fraud cases we've seen. Think about Enron, Worldcom, and more recently, Wirecard, where approximately $2 billion in cash balances just didn't exist. The gold standard for testing existence is physical observation and inspection for inventory. That means attending the physical inventory count and observing for cash. That could mean bank confirmations for receivables. That means accounts receivable confirmation sent directly to the customers, not through the client. For fixed assets, that might mean physically observing and tagging the assets. The key principle here is that you need independent corroboration that the asset is real. The client's own records aren't enough for existence testing. You need external or physical confirmation. A common mistake typically seen is relying solely on client prepared schedules without independent verification. A client can give us a beautifully formatted, fixed asset roll forward, but that doesn't tell us whether the assets actually exist. We've all seen situations where companies were depreciating assets they'd scrapped years ago, assets they'd sold or assets that were never there to begin with. Always tie your existence testing to something independent of what the client gave you. Here's a question you're testing existence of accounts receivable. You send confirmations to a sample of customers. Three customers don't respond. What do you do now? You're right. You perform alternative procedures. You look for subsequent cash receipts, review invoices, and shipping documents.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:21:19] Non-response doesn't mean the receivable doesn't exist. It means you haven't yet gathered sufficient appropriate audit evidence that it does. Keep digging. The second balance level assertion is completeness. You'll remember completeness from our transaction level assertion discussion. You're right. It shows up here too, but with a slightly different flavor. Here's our scenario. A company has several outstanding loans. You're reviewing the notes payable section on the balance sheet. The amounts you see look right. But here's the question. Are there any loans that the company has that aren't showing up? That is balance level completeness. At the balance level. The completeness assertion asks have all assets, liabilities and equity interests that should have been recorded actually been recorded. The risk here is almost entirely about the understatement of liabilities. Companies rarely forget to record their assets, but they might forget to record a contingent liability. They might omit a related party loan. They might fail to accrue for a lawsuit settlement to test balance level completeness. Usually you look at subsequent events, you look at what happened after the year end to identify obligations that existed but weren't recorded. It also involves the search for unrecorded liabilities. That means pulling invoices received after the year end and checking whether the underlying obligation existed at year end. You should also review board minutes, loan agreements and legal letters from the clients attorneys. Here's another question. Your client is involved in a lawsuit.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:23:02] The attorney's letter says that the outcome is reasonably plausible but not probable. Does that need to be disclosed on the balance sheet? Under US GAAP, a contingent liability is accrued on the balance sheet only when the loss is probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If it's only reasonably plausible, it gets disclosed in the notes but not accrued on the balance sheet. That distinction matters. Our third assertion is valuation and allocation. Here's our scenario that will feel very real. You're looking at accounts receivable. The balance is $5 million. You know the receivables exist. You confirmed them. You know that they're all recorded. Completeness looks great, but are they worth the $5 million? Are those customers going to pay? Is the allowance for doubtful accounts accurate? That is valuation and allocation. Valuation asks have assets liabilities and equity interests been included at the appropriate amounts. And are any resulting valuation adjustments appropriately recorded? This is probably the most judgment intensive assertion in the entire framework, because valuation isn't always about what happened. It's about estimates of what will happen in estimates involve assumptions and assumptions involve professional judgment. Think about all of the accounts where valuation is the primary risk allowance for doubtful accounts, inventory measurement, goodwill impairment testing, fair value measurements of investments, the pension liability assumptions, warranty reserves. Each one of those requires management to make an estimate, and your job is to evaluate whether that estimate is reasonable. Testing valuation often involves evaluating management's significant assumptions and comparing them to external data.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:25:04] Reperforming the calculation and assessing whether the methodology is appropriate under the applicable accounting framework for fair value measurements. You may engage evaluation specialist, but as the auditor, you're still responsible for evaluating the specialists risks. A common mistake is accepting management's estimates without challenging the assumptions underneath them. Management might have a perfectly reasonable looking model for their allowance for doubtful accounts. The math checks out. The formula is consistent with prior years, but if the assumptions are stale and the economic environment has shifted, the output is wrong. Even if the math is right, always look through their model to the assumptions. That's where the risk lives. Think about this. You're evaluating the allowance for doubtful accounts for a retailer. Management is using the same assumptions they've used for five years. But one of their largest customers recently filed for bankruptcy. What should you do if you think you should bring it up? Something's not right. You probably should. Specifically and directly. In this case, the historical pattern may no longer be predictive, and the allowance may be understated. Document your concern, quantify the exposure and bring it up. That's what being a good auditor looks like. The fourth assertion here is rights and obligation. And here's our scenario. You're looking at a piece of equipment on the balance sheet that's valued at $800,000. It exists. You've seen it. The value looks right. It's recorded in the right period.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:26:43] But does the company actually own it or is it leased pledged as collateral, subject to a title dispute. Owned by a related party. That is rights and obligations. Rights asks does the entity hold or control the rights to the assets recorded? And on the flip side, obligations asks are the liabilities recorded the genuine obligations of the entity? This assertion is all about legal standing and economic substance. Just because something is on the balance sheet doesn't mean the company has the right to claim it as their own, or that they're the ones actually on the hook for liability. This matters a lot in areas like off balance sheet financing arrangements, lease agreements, related party transactions, assets purchased on installment, where title doesn't transfer until full payment, and consigned inventory that still belongs to the vendor to test rights and obligations. Usually you want to look at legal title documents, loan agreements, lease contracts, and purchase agreements to verify that recorded assets are owned or controlled by the entity and that recorded liabilities are genuine obligations of the entity. We've talked about this already, but reading the contracts is really important. Yes, they're long, they're dense, and they're filled with legalese. But those documents have critical audit information hiding in them. Title transfer clauses. Pledge arrangements, put in call options. Those aren't boilerplate. Read the contracts, understand them and what they're trying to tell you about the assets. Let's pause for another question.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:28:29] A company records inventory on its balance sheet. But when you review the vendor agreement you see that the inventory is on consignment. Title hasn't transferred. Which assertion issue does this raise? If you're thinking about rights, you're correct. The company doesn't own that inventory. It should not be on their balance sheet. You should definitely flag this. Talk to your client and talk to your seniors. Our last assertion here is presentation and disclosure. It gets the least amount of attention, but it's critically important. Here's our scenario. You've confirmed that the numbers are right. Everything is real. Everything is recorded and valued correctly. And in the right period, in the right accounts, the company owns what they say they own. But is the information presented in a way that actually tells users what they need to know. Is it classified correctly? Is it described accurately? Is anything being obscured or omitted or presented in a misleading way? That is, presentation and disclosure. Presentation and disclosure asks have the components of the financial statements been properly classified, described and disclosed? This assertion covers not just whether something is disclosed, but how it's disclosed. A related party transaction mentioned in a confusing footnote using vague language might technically be disclosed while still violating the spirit of the assertion. The test is whether a reasonable user of the financial statements would have the information they need to make the informed decisions. Think about everything that falls under this umbrella segment reporting fair value hierarchy disclosures, subsequent events, related party transactions.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:30:20] Bank Inc.. Information. Going. Concern. Disclosures. Significant accounting policies. All of these are presentation and disclosure assertions. Testing, presentation and disclosure involves carefully reading the financial statements and their footnotes end to end, comparing them to the applicable reporting framework in the US that might be GAAP, and evaluating whether everything that should be disclosed is disclosed and whether the descriptions are accurate. Don't underestimate this. Reading the financials carefully is a skill, and it takes practice. All too commonly, we forget to tie our footnotes back to the underlying numbers. The footnotes in the financials need to be consistent with the face of the financial statements. If the revenue footnote describes a recognition policy that doesn't match how revenue is actually being recognized in the ledger, that's a presentation and disclosure issue. Don't forget to cross-reference. Here's a question. Your client has a significant related party transaction, a loan from the CEO's family trust. It's recorded correctly on the face of the statements, but there's no disclosure in the notes. Which assertion is being violated here? If you're thinking presentation and disclosure, you'd be correct. While the transaction may be recorded correctly, the lack of disclosure means that users of the financial statements don't have all the information they need and are entitled to. To understand the nature of the relationship and its potential impact. Okay, let's step back and look at the whole picture. You've got ten new assertions in your toolkit for transaction level assertions.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:32:03] We've got occurrence, completeness, accuracy, cutoff and classification. And for balance level assertions, existence, completeness, valuation rights and obligations, and presentation and disclosure. But here's what I really want you to think about before we close out today's episode. Assertions don't exist in isolation. They exist in relationship to risk. Before you can start designing your procedures, the audit team assesses risk, specifically, the risk that a material misstatement exists in the financial statements and won't be caught within that risk assessment. You're asking for each significant account and disclosure. Which assertions are most at risk for revenue, maybe occurrence and cut off. Those are usually your highest risks. That's where fraud and aggressive accounting tend to show up in inventory. We're thinking about existence and valuation. Inventory is physical and it's complex to value for accounts payable. Completeness is typically our primary risk. There's sometimes pressure to understate liabilities, not usually to overstate them. The assertions that carry the highest risk. Get the most audit attention. That's what drives the design of the audit program. Every procedure on the audit program is mapped to one or more assertions. Ask your firm or your seniors about their audit programs. Before we wrap, I just want to spend a minute on documentation. When you're completing your work papers, you're required to document which assertion each procedure is addressing. This isn't bureaucratic box checking. It's how you and your firm demonstrate that sufficient, appropriate audit evidence has been gathered for every relevant assertion on every significant account.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:33:55] If you perform a procedure but can't articulate which assertion you are testing, that's a gap. Not because you did anything wrong necessarily, but because you haven't yet connected the dots between the work you did and the conclusion you're trying to reach. Always get in the habit of asking yourself, with every procedure you perform, what am I trying to prove? Which assertion is this testing and is this procedure actually the right one to test that assertion? Ask those questions enough times and they'll become second nature. That's when you go from someone who does audit procedures to someone who understands what the procedures are. We've covered a lot of ground today, and I want to leave you with something that will make all of this click. Think about audit assertions like a prosecutor's case. A good prosecutor doesn't walk into court and say, I think the defendant is guilty. They have to prove specific elements intent, action, causation. Each element has to be proven independently with specific evidence. Leave one element unproven and the case falls apart. No matter how airtight everything else is, audit assertions work the same way. You don't prove that financial statements are fairly stated in one sweeping gesture. You prove specific assertions for specific accounts with specific evidence, occurrence, completeness, accuracy, cutoff, classification, existence, valuation, rights, presentation, and disclosure. Each one is an element of the case.

Meredith Mednick, CPA, CA: [00:35:30] If you miss one, you've got a gap in your evidence and potentially a gap in your opinion. Remember at the beginning I told you about sitting at my desk and googling audit assertions while smiling and nodding like I absolutely knew what was happening. That's a universal experience. Every auditor you admire has probably been there. Every partner at your firm has been there. Your mentor, they've been there, too. The difference between someone who stays confused and someone who grows into a great auditor isn't that one of them was born knowing this stuff. It's that one of them kept asking questions until they understood why. Not just what? You've just spent the last bit of time asking that question, and that puts you ahead of where most people are on their first day on the job. These assertions will come second nature. I promise you that the first time you catch a cut off error on your own, you'll feel it. Click. The first time you design a procedure from scratch and map it confidently to the right assertion, you'll feel it. Click. This is the foundation, and you're building it in exactly the right way. Don't forget that this is eligible for CPE credit. All you need to do is head to earmark.app to complete the quiz. And while you're there, check out the other great episodes we have available. Thanks again for spending this time with me today. I'm Meredith Mednick, CPA. Keep asking the why. Keep pushing to understand the framework behind the procedure and never stop learning.