An entity holds an indefinite-lived intangible asset that tests annually for impairment under ASC 350 using an income approach (discounted cash flow analysis). As part of its risk assessment procedures, the engagement team identifies the following risk of material misstatement related to the valuation assertion:

The revenue projections used in the discounted cash flow analysis could be unreasonable and result in the entity not recording an impairment that exists.

The audit team obtained the following information from the audit procedures performed to address this risk:

• The revenue growth rate used in the projections are above the growth rates predicted by the industry analysts and in industry publications.
• The entity's revenue projections align with historical trends
• The entity's revenue forecasts have not significantly varied from actual results over the past few years
• The entity is operating in a depressed industry that has recently experienced market declines
• The entity has gained market share in each of the last three years.
• The entity has a significant number of multi-year contract with its customers

a) In this scenario what would be considered contradictory evidence? What would be considered corroborative evidence?

b)What additional information would be required? How might this additional information contribute to both contradictory and corroborative evidence?

c) What are some questions that should be discussed with upper management to come to a conclusion on the reasonableness of the entity's projections?