An exception is not resolved simply because a new document supports the preferred answer. Explain the disagreement, obtain evidence that addresses it and preserve the reasoning behind the final disposition.
Write the disagreement as a specific question
Consider a fictional contract-invoice review at Larchfield Services. A support agreement shows an hourly rate of $125. A September invoice bills 60 hours at $140, or $8,400. The purchasing manager supplies an amendment at $140, while the contract register still shows the original rate.
The immediate question is which authorized agreement applied to those September services. The two documents create a potential $900 rate difference: 60 times $15. That calculation describes the issue under the competing rates; it does not establish that $900 is owed back.
Define the conflict before asking for more files. “Confirm the execution and effective date of the amendment for this service period” directs follow-up more clearly than “explain the invoice.” Keep the original finding and both rate sources available to the reviewer.
Test the explanation against the underlying records
Check the amendment's complete text, approval history, signatures and effective date through the organization's established process. Compare its supplier, contracting entity and service scope with the invoice. A rate table copied into an email may be relevant, but it leaves questions about authority and applicability unanswered.
Where evidence conflicts or its reliability is in doubt, the auditor needs procedures to resolve the matter and consider any wider effect. PCAOB AS 1105 describes that responsibility. A newer document should be evaluated on its evidence and relevance, not accepted solely because it arrived later.
In this scenario, the amendment could apply from October 1, could validly apply to September, or could still be an unapproved draft. Each possibility leads to a different conclusion. An executed document might also require interpretation by the appropriate commercial or legal owner before its accounting effect is clear.
Track what each source establishes
| Evidence | Question it can help answer | Question left open |
|---|---|---|
| Original agreement | What rate and terms were initially agreed? | Were they subsequently amended for the relevant services? |
| Amendment and execution record | Was a change authorized, and when did it apply? | Does the billed work fall within its scope and period? |
| Service and acceptance records | What work occurred, on which dates, and was it accepted? | Which contractual rate or adjustment applies? |
| Contract register | What terms did the finance process use? | Was the register complete and current? |
| Invoice and accounting entry | What was billed and recorded? | Was that treatment supported by the applicable agreement? |
Assign an owner and response date to each unresolved question. Keep commercial approval, data correction and audit review as distinct responsibilities. The person updating a register can correct it without being the person who concludes on the accounting or control implications.
Consider the evidence that does not fit
Suppose the manager explains that the amendment applied throughout September, but its effective-date clause says October 1. Obtain support that addresses that difference. Repeating the explanation in a review note does not reconcile the conflicting terms.
In evaluating audit results, relevant evidence includes information that contradicts the financial statement assertions as well as information supporting them. PCAOB AS 2810 sets out that principle. It also addresses corroboration of explanations for significant unusual or unexpected relationships.
If the evidence establishes that the $125 rate applied to all 60 hours, the supported charge is $7,500 and the difference is $900. If a valid amendment establishes $140 for all those services, the billed rate can be supported while the stale register remains a separate process issue. These are possible resolutions of the fictional case, not recorded verification results.
Distinguish correction from resolution
A corrected data field can remove a failed automated check without answering why the original data was wrong. Preserve the source of the correction and assess whether the defect affects other invoices. A stale rate register may require review of the other transactions that used it.
When a supplier issues a corrected invoice or credit, trace it to the original charge and confirm how both documents are represented in the ledger. Record the resulting action through the normal approval process. The review finding itself does not authorize settlement or establish a legal right to withhold payment.
If the available evidence cannot resolve the conflict, keep the item open and explain the remaining limitation. Materiality and the wider significance of the issue are reviewer judgments; they should not be used to rewrite the historical finding.
Document why the disposition is supported
Record the original condition, documents compared, procedures performed, evidence received, remaining uncertainties and conclusion. Include who prepared and reviewed the work and when. Preserve significant contradictory information and how it was addressed, consistent with the documentation principles in PCAOB AS 1215.
A useful disposition might be “September rate difference confirmed; credit requested,” or “amended September rate supported; contract register correction assigned.” Link the actual support rather than reducing the conclusion to “resolved.” Our evidence-origin investigation shows why collecting another matching record may still leave the disputed fact unresolved.
Keep the verification result with the review decision
OpenAuditor's contract checks evaluate the records and terms supplied in the request. They do not authenticate an amendment, decide which conflicting source is authoritative or provide a legal interpretation. Correct supported inputs and retain a new result alongside the original when a rerun is appropriate.
A batch review mark records a reviewer's assessment of the returned verdict. It does not replace the result or preserve a full history of reviewers and decisions. Keep the detailed disposition in your own workflow, with the source evidence and any contract-invoice calculations that support it.