Jennifer Daoust is reading the documents prepared by the members of the team working on the audit of receivables for a large client. Jennifer is the senior manager assisting the engagement partner, Ruby Rogers. Jennifer and Ruby have worked together on many audits and Jennifer knows the types of questions that Ruby will ask about the working papers if they are not up to the standard required by CAS 230. Jennifer is trying to make sure that all documents are up to the required standard before Ruby sees them tomorrow. Jennifer is particularly concerned about the documents relating to the receivable confirmations. This is because the audit assistant who wrote up the confi rmation results said that no further work was required. On review of the results, Jennifer discovered that the audit assistant had incorrectly treated no reply results as acceptable for a positive confi rmation, when they are acceptable only for a negative confirmation. Jennifer had ordered further work be done to follow up these no reply results.

Which of the following are true?

Because confirmations were sent, no further work is needed.

Jennifer must ensure the audit documentation provides sufficient appropriate evidence to support the auditors report.

The confirmations provide strong evidence for the valuation assertion for accounts receivable.

The audit documentation should show who performed the audit work and the date the work was done, as well as who reviewed the audit work performed and the date and extent of such review.

Documentation should be detailed enough so that another experienced auditor can understand the work done and the results obtained.

It would have been better if negative confirmations had been sent, because then a response is always requested.

Jennifers review should show that the decision to take no further action is not appropriate.