Domain F · Area F-CA1 · Reporting risk, controls, evidence and working papers
F.3Evaluate reporting evidence relevance, reliability and sufficiency
Working Draft version 1.1
Purpose and scope
This unit covers the capability to determine what evidence is needed to support a reporting assertion, metric, methodology, judgement or claim and to evaluate whether available evidence is relevant, reliable, complete, current and sufficient. It includes evidence hierarchy, internal and external sources, corroboration, contradictory evidence, estimates, management representations, sampling limitations, unavailable information and alternative procedures.
Applied competency statement
Can define evidence requirements and evaluate the relevance, reliability, completeness, currency and sufficiency of evidence supporting sustainability reporting information, judgements and claims.
Boundary and escalation
This unit owns general reporting-evidence requirements and evaluation of relevance, reliability, coverage and sufficiency. A.2 owns source authority and version control, E.7 owns data validation and reconciliation and I.6 owns AI-specific grounding and verification. It does not express an assurance conclusion; engagement evidence remains the assurance practitioner's responsibility.
Key quality risks
Treating policy documents, screenshots or management representations as sufficient evidence for operating performance; evidence not covering the reported period, population or boundary; relying on self-generated evidence without corroboration; selective use of favourable evidence; ignoring contradictory information; links or files without provenance; evidence created after the event; sample evidence generalised to a full population without basis; third-party certificates used outside their scope; and absence of evidence described as absence of impact, incident or error.
F.3-K01
Understands the relationship among reporting assertions, criteria, risk, control objectives, judgement, claims and the evidence needed to support them.
Knowledge Type: Evidence purpose · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-K02
Understands relevance, reliability, authenticity, completeness, accuracy, currency, coverage, consistency, provenance, accessibility and retrievability.
Knowledge Type: Evidence quality · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-K03
Understands source records, system reports, external documents, contracts, invoices, minutes, approvals, specialist reports, observations, recalculations, confirmations, photographs, representations and other evidence and their relative strengths and limitations.
Knowledge Type: Evidence types and hierarchy · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-K04
Understands period, population, perimeter, sample, location, value-chain, frequency, disaggregation, materiality and the difference between quantity of evidence and sufficiency.
Knowledge Type: Coverage and sufficiency · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-K05
Understands corroboration, contradictory evidence, missing evidence, alternative procedures, estimates, uncertainty, limitation statements and the conditions under which management representation may supplement but not replace other evidence.
Knowledge Type: Contradiction and alternatives · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-K06
Understands evidence ownership, retention, confidentiality, privilege, review, escalation and the distinction between preparer evidence assessment and assurance evidence evaluation.
Knowledge Type: Governance and boundary · Normative Weight: Core
F.3-S01
Define the evidence required for each material reporting assertion, judgement, methodology and claim, including period, population, boundary and quality criteria.
Skill Type: Core applied capability · Observable Output or Result: Reporting evidence requirements and hierarchy
F.3-S02
Assess available evidence for relevance, reliability, authenticity, coverage, currency, provenance and consistency with the reporting conclusion.
Skill Type: Evidence evaluation · Observable Output or Result: Evidence relevance, reliability and sufficiency assessment
F.3-S03
Compare sources, investigate contradictory or incomplete evidence and distinguish direct support from contextual, indirect or management-generated evidence.
Skill Type: Corroboration and contradiction · Observable Output or Result: Evidence contradiction and corroboration record
F.3-S04
Identify evidence gaps, determine alternative procedures or limitations and assess the effect on reporting, controls, sign-off and assurance readiness.
Skill Type: Gap and alternative response · Observable Output or Result: Evidence gap, contradiction and alternative-procedure record
F.3-S05
Explain evidence strengths, weaknesses and residual limitations to owners, management, legal advisers, specialists and reviewers without overstating supportability.
Skill Type: Communication and escalation · Observable Output or Result: Evidence sufficiency conclusion
F.3-B01
Does not accept evidence solely because it was supplied by management, generated by a system or used in a prior report.
Behaviour Type: Evidence scepticism · Non-compensable Requirement: No
F.3-B02
Seeks and retains contradictory and adverse evidence rather than selecting only material that supports the preferred narrative.
Behaviour Type: Completeness and balance · Non-compensable Requirement: No
F.3-B03
States when evidence supports only part of a period, population, boundary or claim and escalates unsupported conclusions.
Behaviour Type: Boundary transparency · Non-compensable Requirement: No
Typical tasks · 4
F.3-T01
Define assertions, criteria, reporting conclusions, period, population and boundary and specify the evidence required.
Primary Output Link: F.3-O01
F.3-T02
Obtain and evaluate internal, external, specialist and management evidence for provenance, coverage, reliability and currentness.
Primary Output Link: F.3-O02
F.3-T03
Compare sources, investigate contradictions and determine whether additional, alternative or corroborating evidence is required.
Primary Output Link: F.3-O03
F.3-T04
Document residual gaps and limitations, assess effects on disclosure, controls, sign-off and readiness and obtain authorised review.
Primary Output Link: F.3-O03
Expected outputs · 3
Level 1 · Foundation
F.3-L1-01
Can collect and classify specified evidence, complete an established evidence assessment and identify obvious missing, outdated or out-of-scope support.
Indicator Dimension: Task execution
F.3-L1-02
Can distinguish direct evidence from representation or contextual evidence and escalate contradictions and unsupported reporting conclusions.
Indicator Dimension: Quality, judgement and accountability
Level 2 · Practitioner
F.3-L2-01
Can independently define and evaluate evidence requirements for a moderately complex reporting workstream and determine whether the available evidence is sufficient for management reporting purposes.
Indicator Dimension: Task execution
F.3-L2-02
Can resolve routine contradictions, design alternative procedures and explain residual evidence limitations and their reporting and readiness effects to management.
Indicator Dimension: Quality, judgement and accountability
Level 3 · Advanced Practitioner
F.3-L3-01
Can design or critically review enterprise reporting-evidence methodologies across complex topics, estimates, value-chain information, claims and anticipated assurance scopes.
Indicator Dimension: Method design and review
F.3-L3-02
Can challenge unsupported conclusions and selective evidence, and advise governance bodies on limitations, sign-off and publication risk.
Indicator Dimension: Leadership and governance
Illustrative evidence · 6
F.3-E01
Reporting evidence requirements and hierarchy linked to assertions, criteria, population and boundary.
Evidence Type: Work product
F.3-E02
Evidence relevance, reliability and sufficiency assessment with source and limitation fields.
Evidence Type: Work product
F.3-E03
Evidence gap, contradiction and alternative-procedure record.
Evidence Type: Work product
F.3-E04
Corroboration, source-verification, scope, period and population trail supporting the evidence conclusion.
Evidence Type: Process evidence
F.3-E05
Documented owner, legal, specialist, quality, internal-audit or management review and the practitioner's response.
Evidence Type: Review evidence
F.3-E06
Observed evaluation and defence of a contested evidence-sufficiency conclusion.
Evidence Type: Observed performance
Assessment · 3
F.3-A-L1
Evidence-classification exercise, scope review and situational judgement
Evidence classification; period and population coverage; reliability and provenance; escalation awareness.
F.3-A-L2
Integrated evidence-sufficiency case and professional memorandum
Evidence requirements; corroboration; contradiction resolution; alternative procedures; residual limitation and communication.
F.3-A-L3
Complex evidence-governance case, portfolio and oral defence
Method design; evidence hierarchy and scepticism; contradictory evidence; publication and governance advice; oral defence.
| From | To | Type | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| B.8 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Specialist contributions must satisfy the relevance, reliability, sufficiency and limitation requirements of the reporting evidence architecture. |
| C.4 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Materiality inputs should meet proportionate relevance, reliability, sufficiency and limitation requirements. |
| E.7 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Data-quality conclusions depend on relevant, reliable and sufficient corroborating evidence. |
| F.1 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Assertions and risks determine the evidence required to support reporting conclusions. |
| F.3 | E.7 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Validation and reconciliation results may provide corroborating reporting evidence. |
| F.3 | E.9 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Data lineage and record integrity support evidence provenance, coverage and retrieval. |
| F.3 | B.8 | Method, data and analytical linkage | Specialist evidence should be scoped, reviewed and integrated with assumptions and limitations. |
| F.3 | F.4 | Feeds into | Evidence assessments are organised into controlled working papers and evidence packs. |
| F.3 | G.7 | Disclosure, claims and publication linkage | Public claims should not exceed the evidence available and should reflect material limitations. |
| F.4 | F.3 | Prerequisite | Working papers should contain evidence evaluated for relevance, reliability and sufficiency. |
| F.7 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Readiness depends on evidence quality, coverage and remaining gaps. |
| G.4 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Quantitative and qualitative financial-effect statements require suitable supporting evidence. |
| G.5 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Disclosure outlines should state the evidence needed to support planned statements and claims. |
| G.6 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Material statements and conclusions should not exceed the available evidence. |
| G.7 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Claims require relevant, reliable and sufficiently complete evidence. |
| G.9 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Evidence gaps and limitations should be reflected in reporting qualification. |
| H.2 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Professional scepticism is applied when evaluating reporting evidence, contradictions and limitations. |
| H.3 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Judgements should be based on relevant, reliable and sufficiently complete evidence. |
| I.4 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Research sources and conclusions should be evaluated for relevance, reliability and sufficiency. |
| I.6 | F.3 | Evidence and traceability linkage | Grounding and verification should evaluate whether AI-assisted outputs are supported by appropriate reporting evidence. |
| Role | Target level | Relevance | Evidence expectation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corporate Sustainability Reporting Practitioner | Practitioner | Required? | A case or work sample demonstrating independent performance, documented judgement and a reviewable professional output. |
| Sustainability Reporting Manager or Lead | Advanced Practitioner | Role-defining? | A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability. |
| Sustainability Reporting Adviser or Consultant | Advanced Practitioner | Role-defining? | A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability. |
| Sustainability Data, Systems and Controls Specialist | Practitioner | Required? | A case or work sample demonstrating independent performance, documented judgement and a reviewable professional output. |
| Assurance Readiness and Reporting Quality Specialist | Advanced Practitioner | Role-defining? | A complex case or verified portfolio, supplemented by oral or observed defence, demonstrating method design, challenge and governance capability. |
| Investor, Capital Markets and Ratings Disclosure Specialist | Practitioner | Required? | A case or work sample demonstrating independent performance, documented judgement and a reviewable professional output. |