A finished ACC-491 Topic 6 attribute sampling evaluation example, projecting one deviation in sixty vouchers to an upper limit for the population and revising reliance when that limit exceeds tolerance. Searches like "acc 491 topic 6 assignment example", "acc491 topic 6 sample" and "acc-491 topic 6 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-491 Topic 6 attribute sampling evaluation looks like
Parameters come before results, all illustrative: a population of 4,800 vouchers paid during the year, a tolerable deviation rate of 5 percent, a 10 percent risk of overreliance and a sample of 60 selected by random numbers matched to the voucher sequence. A deviation is defined in advance as a payment released without a purchase order, receiving report and invoice all matched and initialed. One voucher fails, a rush invoice paid on a phone call from the warehouse with no receiving report. The sample rate is 1.7 percent, but the evaluation reports the upper deviation limit, about 6.4 percent from the standard attribute table, as the figure that speaks for the population. Because that limit exceeds 5 percent, the planned reliance is withdrawn, the deviation is examined for its cause, and substantive testing of payables is extended.
How an ACC-491 Topic 6 example is structured
The evaluation is built so each conclusion rests on something stated before the sample was drawn. It opens with the control and the assertion it supports, occurrence of recorded purchases and payables. The second part defines the population, the sampling unit and what counts as a deviation, so no result can be reclassified afterward. The third sets the parameters, tolerable rate, risk of overreliance and expected rate, with a sentence explaining each choice. The selection method comes fourth, including how voided vouchers were replaced. The results section reports the single deviation with the voucher number and what was missing. The sixth part computes the sample rate and the upper limit, then compares the limit with tolerance. The evaluation closes with a qualitative review of the deviation and the revised plan for substantive work on payables.
Deviation defined before selection
Stating in advance that a payment without all three matched documents is a deviation keeps a failure from being explained away once the sample is examined.
Parameters chosen and justified
Tolerable rate, risk of overreliance and expected rate each carry a sentence of reasoning, since the evaluation is only as sound as the thresholds it tests against.
Upper limit reported, not sample rate
One deviation in sixty is 1.7 percent in the sample, yet the population conclusion rests on the upper limit, which allows for sampling risk.
The deviation examined for its cause
A rush payment made on a phone confirmation is investigated to see whether it reflects a one-off exception, a workaround others use, or something worse.
Reliance revised and work extended
With the limit above tolerance, the planned reliance is withdrawn and substantive testing of recorded payables grows to supply the evidence the control could not.
Where marks go in ACC-491 Topic 6
Sampling papers lose credit most often at the evaluation, after the arithmetic is finished. Concluding that the control works because only 1.7 percent of the sample deviated states a fact about sixty vouchers and treats it as a fact about 4,800, ignoring the sampling risk the upper limit exists to capture. Deviations defined after the results are known invite reclassification, and markers notice a failure relabeled as an exception. Samples drawn from a single month cannot support conclusions about the year. Papers that compute the upper limit correctly, find it above tolerance and then rely on the control anyway have performed the test and disregarded its result. Treating the deviation only as a number, with no look at why the rush payment happened, misses the qualitative evaluation that many rubrics expect beside the quantitative one.
Get an ACC-491 Topic 6 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-491 Topic 6 instructions, your rubric and the sampling case or control your section assigned. We write a custom example to them, with the deviation defined in advance, parameters justified, the sample rate projected to an upper limit, the result compared with tolerance and the deviation's cause examined, back in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
ACC-491 Topic 6 questions, answered
Why not rely on the sample deviation rate?
Because a sample can by chance contain fewer deviations than the population holds. The upper deviation limit adds an allowance for that sampling risk, giving the highest rate the population could plausibly have at the chosen risk of overreliance. Comparing that limit with the tolerable rate is how the sample supports a statement about the whole population rather than about the vouchers actually examined.
What is the risk of overreliance?
The risk that the sample suggests a control is working well enough when, in the full population, it is not. An auditor who overrelies on a control reduces substantive testing below what the true control risk would justify. Setting that risk low requires larger samples. The example uses 10 percent, labeled illustrative, and explains the choice in terms of how heavily the audit plan depends on the control.
Is statistical sampling required?
No. Auditing standards permit statistical and nonstatistical sampling, and both require the sample to be representative and the results projected to the population. Statistical methods measure sampling risk mathematically, which makes the upper limit calculation possible. Nonstatistical approaches rely on judgment for that allowance. The example uses attribute tables because many sections ask for them, and it notes the nonstatistical alternative.