 size does have a more of an effect on the sample, what's going to happen with the sample as opposed to the control testing. So keep that in mind. The rest are going to be the same here. We have the expected population deviation rate change in the factor. If we lower it, the effect on the sample size is a decrease. If we increase it, we have an increase. That's going to be like the same type of thing is happening. The lower the decrease, increase, then we have the tolerable deviation rate. This is inverse relationship. If the change in the factor is lower, we have an effect on the sample size increase. If it's higher, effect on the sample size decrease. And then the desired confidence level, it's going to be the same. It's going to have the same relation, lower, decrease, higher increase. And then the population, if we want the change in the factor goes lower, then again, we have the same, it would be decrease, higher would be an increase. Next, we're going to go to the performance. We have the select sample items and perform the auditing procedures. We're concentrating here on the select sample items. The auditor will select and a sample by using a systematic selection approach called probability proportional to size selection. So we're going to use probability proportional to size selection. The sampling interval is determined by dividing the book value of the population by the sample size. So we'll take the book value, what's on the books, the population divided by the sample size, each individual dollar in the population has an equal chance of being selected and the items or logical units larger than the interval will always be selected. So the units larger than a specific interval. After we have the selected sample items, we will of course perform the auditing procedures. Auditor does the plan auditing procedures on the logical units containing the selected dollar sampling units. Next, we have the evaluation. So once we've gone through the performance, we have the evaluation, calculate the projected misstatement and the upper limit on misstatement. The misstatements detected in the sample need to be projected to the population. So we're going to project what happened in the sample, of course, to the population in total. Then we're going to come to conclusion. So we're going to make a conclusion based on this process. Often the decision is whether the balance is materially misstated or not. So remember, we're typically considering something like the balance at accounts receivable or the balance in something like inventory on a dollar basis. And the question is, is it materially misstated or not? So that's going to be in essence, typically our conclusion that we're getting to tolerable misstatement is compared to the upper misstatement limit. So we're going to say, what's the tolerable misstatement? What's the upper misstatement limit? If the upper misstatement limit is less than or equal to the tolerable misstatement, we decide that the balance is not materially misstated. And that's of course the conclusion we're hoping for. However, what if we have a case where that's not the case? And we say that it is materially misstated given our sample in a situation where the misstatement limit is greater than the tolerable misstatement limit, the auditor will conclude that the balance is materially misstated. That's a problem. It's materially misstated. What do we do from that point forward? Well, we can increase the sample size and doing that, we would basically be thinking, well, maybe it's not materially misstated. Maybe our sample is misrepresenting. Possibly we can increase the sample size and do more testing and see if indeed it is materially misstated or if there's something wrong given the sample population that we have. We can perform other substantive procedures. We might say, okay, let's do other types of procedures to test whether or not this balance is correct or not correct or how incorrect or what we believe the balance should be. So we might do other procedures, request the entity adjust the balance. If we come to the conclusion that the balance is misstated and we've tried to test things, we've said, okay, we've looked and we said it was misstated. The sampling said it was misstated. We increased the sample to double check it. We've done other types of substantive testing and we still come to the conclusion that there's some type of misstatement. We're going to request then that the entity make an adjustment to the balance so that the balance will be properly stated so that we can report that the balance is properly restated on the financial statement in the opinion of the audit report. However, if management refuses to adjust the balance, the alder will consider issuing a qualified or adverse opinion. So it's possible we say, hey, look, our audit says that your inventory and or your accounts receivable are overstated and that's and we believe that's the case. We think that this adjustment needs to be put in place. It's possible that the management then says, well, I don't believe that or I'm not going to do that for whatever reason. If that's the case, then we would have to issue possibly a qualified opinion basically saying, well, the financial statements look correct except for this one deviation or an adverse opinion. If it was severe enough for us to think that the financial statements were not materially stated correctly, then an adverse opinion. And if that were the case, if we were going to give a qualified or definitely an adverse opinion and the client wasn't making the adjustment that we think is clearly needs to be made, it might be the case that we'd have to stop the engagement at that point as well.