Which two statements are least appropriate?

If work is reviewed as it progresses the draft report will not be delayed awaiting the audit managers’ review. The report review may look for:

a. the structure. The report should follow a defined format and reflect what may be called the house style.

b. what the findings are based on. There should be a clear link between the terms of reference, the work carried out, the findings and then the recommendations.

c. how they are expressed. Securing good findings is one consideration but the way they are presented is a separate matter.

d. the tone of the report. One important review point relates to the way the auditors have expressed their findings.

e. gaps. The report must be read as a whole by the reviewer and obvious gaps isolated.

f. the terminology used. The auditor is faced with a dilemma at times where although the line manager will be the main client for the report, it will also be read by others less familiar with the area under review. It is best to aim the report at technical managers who understand the operations that were audited g. spelling and grammar. This is a material point in that many audit reports contain excellent findings and crucial recommendations but are let down by poor spelling.
h. whether the house style has been applied. Titles, colours, logos, binding and report covers should all follow the adopted format.
i. whether it appears as a professional job well done. The reviewer should ensure that the report reflects a well-done audit that has directed itself to the terms of reference.
j. whether the client would be quite happy to pay for the resources invested in the audit.
One interesting feature of the review will be to ask whether the report is worth the cost in terms of audit hours. If not, the report should not be released.