 Let's see if this has been done in the correct way. Again, common types of test questions that people have problems with is matching up the actual assertion to the test that they know they have to create, but they don't really understand what the assertion is. So these are management assertions about classes of transactions and events and related disclosures. First assertion, occurrence. Occurrence transactions and events that have been recorded or disclosed have occurred and such transactions and events pertain to the entity. So we have to obviously if we have financial statements and they're representing the fact that a sale happened, we want to know did that really happen or are they trying to inflate the financial statements for some reason or the other, you know, is it a fictitious basic sale for one reason or another? We need to know that something actually did happen that's being represented on the financial statement. Completeness, all transactions and events that should have been recorded have been recorded and all related disclosures that should have been included in the financial statements have been included. So now we're looking at the other side of things. We're saying, well, these financial statements don't represent, you know, some type of transaction that possibly should be there. Is that the case? Is it, could it be the case that say a large expenditure that should be on the books somehow isn't there, depreciation wasn't recorded or something like that are the financial statements complete? Is everything that should have been recorded, been recorded? Authorization. Transactions and events have been properly authorized, accuracy amounts and other data related to recorded transactions and events have been recorded appropriately and related disclosures have been appropriately measured and described cut off transactions and events have been recorded in the correct accounting period. So some people might not be as familiar with the term cut off. You can think of cut off that what should come to mind in terms of financial accounting or the adjusting entries at the end of the time period, when we're thinking about timing differences is something recorded in the proper time period, should it be recorded, should revenue be included at say, if it's a, if it's a December year end in the current year or should it be included in the following year? Oftentimes errors within financial accounting as well as fraud could take place by having revenues and expenses recorded in the, in the wrong time period either. So we want to check the cut offs at the beginning of the year and the end of the year to check whether or not they're in the correct time period. Classification. Transactions and events have been recorded in the proper accounts and presentation. Transactions and events are appropriately aggregated or disaggregated and clearly described and related disclosures are relevant and understandable in the context of the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. Now we're going to take a look at management assertions related to account balances and related disclosures. So we're looking at assertions related to account balances now. So when we're looking at the actual account, you can imagine basically going through the balance sheet, checking off these accounts. We can compare this to our building type of analogy. If we want to look at the structural soundness of the building, what are we going to do? We can find things and basically test those things. If we look at the financial statements, we could think about, well, one of the first places we start might be that we take the balance sheet, look at something like cash, check it out, see if we can test that. Look at something like the accounts receivable, check it out. We can take apart the financial statements, of course, by looking at those actual accounts and possibly testing for those actual accounts. So when we're looking at the account balances, then we're looking at things like existence. So is there existence of assets, liabilities, equity? When you're thinking about these things as well, we're usually skeptical about the financial statements being overstated. And so we're usually skeptical about basically, if I was thinking about existence, you want to think, well, I might be more skeptical towards cash than liabilities because it's more likely that they might put something like cash or an asset on the books in order to look good, as opposed to putting a liability on the books that doesn't exist that would make them look worse. So as you look through these types of assertions, keep in your mind as an auditor, you're probably looking to be skeptical towards the financial statements looking better rather than worse. Now it's possible that they actually put something together to look worse. When would you want to look worse? There's a lot of times that a company might want to look worse or there's one time in particular where companies would want to look worse and may take actions, fraudulent actions possibly to deceive in order to look worse. And that would of course be related to taxes. So those two things are always going the opposite direction. If someone's trying to look bad or trying to put something together just for tax purposes, they're often more likely to look worse because if they look worse, then they pay less taxes. You don't go to the tax collector driving up in the couple hundred thousand dollar car or anything like that. Typically people try to look worse, but any other time, then companies usually try to look better. And if you're talking about publicly traded companies or a company looking for a loan or a company trying to get equity investments, typical type of things companies do, everything other than taxes, then the company will typically be trying to look better than they may look. That's usually the perspective that we're looking at because we're usually not representing just the IRS. We're not, it's not the main user possibly of the financial statements. The main users of the financials and the reader for the audit might be for investors, for publicly traded companies, we're typically looking out for investors. We're typically looking out for in terms of the audit for people that might do business such as people that might give a loan, banks and things like that. And therefore again, skeptical, usually on the financial statements being overstated, looking better. And therefore as you look at these assertions and think about testing, you're probably going to have that kind of skeptical slant towards your perspective on how to put together the procedures. Rights and obligations. The entity holds or controls the rights to assets and liabilities and are the obligations of the entity. So they have actually have the rights and obligations to the assets and liabilities being reported. Then we have completeness, all assets, liabilities and equity interests that should have been recorded have been recorded and all related disclosures that should have been included in the financial statements have been included in the financial statements. Then we have accuracy, valuation and allocation, assets, liabilities and equity interests have been included in the financial statement at appropriate amounts and any resulting valuation or allocation adjustments have been appropriately recorded and related disclosures have been appropriately measured and described. Classification, assets, liabilities and equity have been recorded in the proper accounts and then of course presentation. Assets, liabilities and equity are appropriately aggregated or disaggregated and clearly described and related disclosures are relevant and understandable in the context of the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework, typically being something like generally accepted accounting principles gap.