A finished ACC-680 Topic 1 analytic assertion coverage map example, tying five planned audit analytics to the assertions they can evidence and exposing one gap and one analytic that evidences nothing. Searches like "acc 680 topic 1 assignment example", "acc680 topic 1 sample" and "acc-680 topic 1 example" land here.
What a finished ACC-680 Topic 1 analytic assertion coverage map looks like
The finished map is a grid with accounts and assertions down the side and five planned analytics across the top; all figures are illustrative. A three-way match of all 61,000 purchase invoices against orders and receiving records supplies evidence on occurrence and accuracy for purchases and payables. A gap test on shipping document numbers addresses completeness of revenue. A receivables aging rebuilt from invoice-level data tests the accuracy of the aging that the valuation estimate relies on, not collectibility itself. A search of 4,300 disbursements in the 45 days after year end, matched to receiving dates, addresses completeness of payables from outside the ledger. The fifth, a dashboard of revenue by customer and month, tests no assertion, and the map reclassifies it as risk assessment. Existence of inventory is covered by no analytic and is routed to the count observation.
How an ACC-680 Topic 1 example is structured
The map is preceded by a statement of what an analytic must do to count as audit evidence and followed by a list of what remains untested. The opening paragraph states that test: an analytic counts only if a named assertion for a named account would be supported or contradicted by its result. The grid comes second, account-assertion pairs as rows and analytics as columns, with each filled cell carrying a sentence on why the result bears on that assertion. The third part examines direction, since three of the analytics start from recorded transactions and can only find overstatement, while the disbursement search starts outside the ledger. A fourth part explains why the dashboard was moved to risk assessment. The last part lists the uncovered pairs, inventory existence chief among them, and names the procedure assigned to each.
A test for what counts as evidence
An analytic enters the map only if its result could support or contradict a named assertion for a named account, which the opening paragraph states plainly.
One cell, one reason
Every filled cell carries a sentence explaining why that result bears on that assertion, so the grid cannot claim coverage it never argues for.
Direction checked for every analytic
Tests that start from recorded invoices can reveal overstatement only, so completeness of payables is covered by the disbursement search that begins outside the ledger.
A dashboard reclassified honestly
Revenue by customer and month informs where risk sits but supports no assertion, so the map moves it to risk assessment instead of counting it as evidence.
Uncovered pairs routed elsewhere
Inventory existence cannot be established from data alone, and the map assigns it to the count observation rather than leaving the gap unmentioned.
Where marks go in ACC-680 Topic 1
Marks drain away first from maps that list analytics by technique, matching, recomputation, visualization, without an assertion attached to any of them. A dashboard counted as evidence is the characteristic error, since a chart of revenue by month can prompt questions and cannot answer one. Papers that credit an analytic over recorded invoices with testing completeness have the direction reversed, and markers look for that reversal specifically. Claiming the rebuilt aging establishes collectibility overstates it; the rebuild shows the aging is arithmetically right, and valuation still needs evidence that the balances will be collected. Maps showing full coverage invite suspicion, because some assertions, inventory existence above all, need procedures no data file can replace. A last deduction goes to papers that never say what an analytic must do to count, leaving every cell in the grid unargued.
Get an ACC-680 Topic 1 example written to your instructions
Send the ACC-680 Topic 1 instructions, the rubric from your classroom and the client case or planned procedures your section was given. We write a custom example to them, with each analytic tied to a named account and assertion, direction checked, non-evidence reclassified and uncovered assertions routed to other procedures, back in 24 to 48 hours. The first one is free.
ACC-680 Topic 1 questions, answered
Is a data visualization ever audit evidence?
Rarely on its own. A chart can show where amounts cluster or change, which is valuable for deciding where to test, but it does not compare recorded amounts with anything that would confirm or contradict them. When a visualization is built on an expectation and differences from that expectation are investigated, the investigation produces evidence. The chart by itself belongs to risk assessment.
Why can't a three-way match test completeness?
Because it starts from invoices already recorded and checks that each has a matching order and receiving record. A purchase that was never recorded produces no invoice in the file, so the match cannot find it. Completeness needs a starting population the ledger did not generate, payments after year end or receiving records, traced back to see whether each liability was recorded.
How many analytics should a plan include?
As many as there are assertions they can genuinely address, and no more. A plan with twenty analytics clustered on occurrence has less coverage than one with five aimed at different assertions. The map exists to show that distribution. Where the assignment specifies the analytics, the example maps those, and it notes any assertion the specified set leaves uncovered.