 review and give an opinion on in this way or give some kind of assurance in what type of standard should a review be based on? So generally established by groups of experts. So when we think about the standards, when we think about if we're taking a look at something, for example, the financial statements, then we of course need to compare that to something. We need to say, okay, how is this thing going to relate? How do we know how can we give assurance? Well, usually we're going to find some standard standards that we're going to take a look at. Standards usually being created by experts. If we're talking about financial statement audits, standards set by financial reporting framework. So if we're talking about financial statements, audits, usually the thing we look at when we're looking at audits, we're looking at some kind of framework, the financial reporting framework to go by normally, that's generally accepted accounting principles gap. So normally in a normal audit, we would say, Hey, here's the financial statements, we're going to dig down on them and see if they are in accordance with the rules to generally accepted accounting principles, do they adhere to the generally accepted accounting principles? Now note, if we could have other standards, though, financial reporting frameworks that we're looking at. So for example, if you're getting a loan from the bank and the bank is willing to accept a cash basis, or willing to accept financial statements that are in accordance with the tax code, then that might be good enough, we might be saying, okay, now we're reviewing this in relation to the financial reporting framework of the IRS tax code or a cash basis. So how is financial reporting framework used? So CPA firm performs an audit in order to gather evidence to issue an opinion on whether financial statements follow the financial reporting framework. So when we think about, if we're thinking about gap as the financial reporting framework, then of course what we're going to do is say, okay, how can we prove that the financial statements are in accordance with gap? Well, we're going to go and we're going to try to gather evidence, we're going to basically make a case for it. And then we're going to give an opinion as to whether they do conform or they don't conform based on the evidence that we're going to draw. So what type of a test engagements are there? There's going to be examinations, there's reviews, there's agreed upon procedures. These are going to be the most common items. What's an examination? Usually that's an audit, an audit when involving historical financial statements. So when we think about examinations, we're generally thinking the audit and that's the highest assurance CPA can offer. So that's when we think about an audit, that's the highest assurance. Now note, we're not talking about IRS audits, tax audits usually. When we talk about financial statements, we're talking about the assurance of the CPA assurance of the financial statements generally. That's going to be the context of the audits in this case. So what's in a review then? It's much less in scope of procedure than an examination. So an audit is going to be the highest examination that we can have. A review is going to be much less. So we're going to do a lot more digging. We may not go out to the company's site as much. It's going to probably involve a lot more testings that are in-house ratio analysis things we can do in the office and therefore it provides only limited assurance. So sometimes that might be all you need. If you're talking to the bank and you're looking for a loan or what not a company needs a loan, maybe they don't need an audit. Maybe they just need an assurance. Maybe they don't need us digging into a full audit. That would cost a lot more money. If the bank only wants reasonable assurance with a review, then that may be appropriate in those cases. Of course, a publicly traded company is required to have audits and non-publicly traded companies may have many types of situations where review would be a good way to go. Let's take a look at a chart here. So if we had an examination, we're saying the assurance level is high. So we're going to say we're given high assurance that the financial statements that we're talking about in audits are correct. That means that the risk of a material misstatement is low. So if we look at the financial statements and you say, what are the odds that there's a big misstatement on the financial statements? Well, if it's been audited, the risk of a material misstatement, a misstatement that would be relevant to decision-making, is low. It doesn't mean there's not in-material misstatements, but if it's in-material, it shouldn't affect decision-making. So assurance report, we're going to issue a report for these things. And usually if we're talking about an audit somewhere in the standard report that we'll take a look at later, it's going to say in our opinion. So that's going to be, it's going to be in our opinion. It's going to be part of the report. Procedures, we're going to choose from all available procedures in any combination that can limit risk to a low level. So we're going to do a lot more procedures in the audit. We're going to do the analytical procedures. We're also going to pick from procedures that we think can lower the risk. And that could include going out to the actual site and digging through things like invoices and whatnot, and actually observing things and whatnot. And then we have the review. And remember that a review is a lot less. So we're going to have the assurance level is only moderate. It's not as high a level of assurance if we're doing a review as opposed to an audit. Therefore, the risk of material misstatement is moderate. So if we're looking at the financial statement, what's the risk that there's a material misstatement? Well, it's moderate. There's a higher risk than if we did a full audit and examination. If we do a report, our report would say something like, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made. So you can see that that's a lot more kind of lawyer-y and not giving a full assurance there in that. So we're giving a reviewed opinion there. And notice we're never going to say in the report that we guarantee anything because that's legally not a smart thing to do because it could expose to liability. So in this case, we're saying we are not aware of any material modifications. All right. So often limited to inquiry and analytical procedures. So what are we going to do in a review? Usually it's going to be more of the stuff we can do in the office. We're going to do, you know, ratio analysis, probably, and compare the numbers from last year to this year. We're going to do some ratio analysis in there and see if there's unusual circumstances, unusual information. We're probably going to do a lot less of going out to the company and digging through and doing more observations and that type of thing in the review process as compared to the office.