Assurance and Audit Services Marking Rubric

Criteria

High Distinction (80-100%)

Distinction (70-

79%)

Credit (60-69%)

Pass (50-59%)

Fail (0-49%)

Apply audit and assuran ce concep ts and principl es

Engagement letter applies the concepts and principles of auditors' responsibilities in the clients' context including links to clients' past auditing with no grammatical and spelling errors.

Engagement letter applies the concepts and principles of auditors' responsibilities in the clients' context.

Has minimal grammatical and spelling errors (1-2)

Engagement letter applies the concepts and principles of auditors' responsibilities in the engagement letter in relation to clients' context.

Has some grammatical and spelling errors.

Engagement letter applies the concepts and principles of auditors' responsibilities in the engagement letter. Marks are deducted for lack of contextualisation.

Has some grammatical and spelling errors.

Engagement letter has provided no understanding and evaluation as to the application of the audit concepts used.

Has many grammatical and spelling errors.

Criteria

Examin e types of risk in an audit and assuran ce context

High Distinction (80-100%)

Distinction (70-

79%)

Credit (60-69%)

Pass (50-59%)

Fail (0-49%)

Letter provides an outstanding understanding of the risks in undertaking the audit of client company by linking and examining the PEST or SWOT

analysis of the company. Letter also considers recent news articles concerning the industry/company.

Letter provides an excellent understanding of the risks in undertaking the audit of client company by linking and examining the PEST or SWOT

analysis of the company with relevant information from recent news.

Letter provides a good understanding of the risks in undertaking the audit of client company by examining the PEST or SWOT analysis of the company.

Letter outlines the risks in undertaking the audit of client company by examining the PEST or SWOT

analysis of the

company.

The letter does not address this criterion and does not address any outcomes from the PEST or SWOT analysis of the case study company.

Apply a rigorou s method ology to examin e audit and assuran ce theory

The letter provides an excellent justification of auditing the client reports using one theory and providing excellent references (more than 3) to support their viewpoint linking to the client's context.

The letter provides a good explanation of auditing the client reports using one theory and providing good reference to support their viewpoint (about 2) with good links to the client's context.

The letter provides a fair explanation of auditing the client reports using one theory and using relevant references and somewhat linked to the client's context.

The letter outlines the need for auditing using theories of auditing using relevant references but does not link to the client's context.

The letter does not address this criterion as there was no discussion of the need for auditing using theory or relevant references.

Criteria

Evaluat e strengt hs and weakne sses of audit and assuran ce process es and framew orks

High Distinction (80-100%)

Distinction (70-

79%)

Credit (60-69%)

Pass (50-59%)

Fail (0-49%)

Has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of audit and assurance processes and frameworks with links to clients' context including issues from clients' past audit and topical issues uncovered.

Has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of audit and assurance processes and frameworks with links to clients' context including some issues from clients' past audit.

Has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of audit and assurance processes and frameworks with links to clients' context.

Has discussed the strengths and weaknesses of audit and assurance processes and frameworks with somewhat links to the clients' context.

Has not addressed the strengths and weaknesses of audit and assurance processes and frameworks.

Criteria

Identify and examin e the social and environ mental risks associa ted with the busines s in line with the Sustain able Develo pment Goals (SDGs)

High Distinction (80-100%)

Distinction (70-

79%)

Credit (60-69%)

Pass (50-59%)

Fail (0-49%)

The letter has an in-depth discussion of the SDGs pertaining to the company. Even if the business does not discuss this in their disclosures, there has been a discussion of the audit risk relating to making disclosures in this area.

Also, the letter has made references to all exact SDGs relevant to the business and clearly highlighting it through the strengths and weaknesses.

The letter has a good and comprehensive discussion of the SDGs pertaining to the company. Even if the business does not discuss this in their disclosures, there has been a discussion of the audit risk relating to making disclosures in this area.

Also, the letter has made references to the SDGs relevant to the business particularly highlighting it through the strengths and weaknesses.

The letter has a good discussion of the SDGs pertaining to the company. Even if the business does not discuss this in their disclosures, there has been a discussion of the audit risk relating to making disclosures in this area.

Also, the letter has made references to the SDGs.

The letter has a clear discussion of the SDGs pertaining to the company. Even if the business does not discuss this in their disclosures, there has been a discussion of the audit risk relating to making disclosures in this area.

The letter has no discussion of the SDGs pertaining to the company. Even if the business does not discuss this in their disclosures, there was no effort made to identify this.