Presentation Value 10% Mark awarded Unacceptable presentation. Referencing is absent, not systematic or incorrect Acceptable presentation – obvious errors demonstrating lack of attention to detail. Some attempt at referencing but obvious errors Good presentation overall but some obvious errors. Referencing is mainly accurate Professional presentation – minor errors in some elements. Correct referencing throughout Highly professional presentation – satisfies all presentation elements. Correct referencing throughout

Recommendations / conclusions Value 30% Mark awarded Few or no recommendations made / no justification. Any recommendations made are not supported or are inaccurate. Some recommendations made and not well linked to ASA 701 Communicating key audit matters in respect of the selected ASX top 100 companies. Good recommendationsand evaluation made, linked to ASA 701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in respect of the selected ASX top 100 companies. Very good recommendations and evaluation made, linked to ASA 701 Communicating Key Audit Matters in respect of the selected top 100 companies. Excellentrecommendations and evaluation made, linked to ASA 701Communicating Key Audit Matters in respect of the selected top 100 companies.

Analysis Value 30% Mark awarded Poor evaluation. Significant gaps in knowledge of the theory and lack of understanding of the key audit matters. No analysis provided. Disjointed or no discussion. Simple discussion of key audit matters. Not all aspects of task completed in sufficient detail. Most aspects of the task completed but assessment lacks cohesion. Identifies and discusses key audit matters. All aspects of the task completed – somecohesion. Identifies and clearly explains Key Audit Matters. All aspects of the task completed with minimal errors in cohesion Identifies and insightfully discusses Key Audit Matters. All aspects of the task completed in a comprehensive and cohesivemanner

Research– extent and application Value 30% Mark awarded Inaccurate, inappropriate or no use of literature. Analysis not developed. No original explanations provided. Minimum number of sources, not all current or relevant. Paraphrasing used throughout but not always accompanied by original explanations. Theory relevant but not always linked to analysis. Good selection of theory from a range of sources to build and adequately justifies analysis. Paraphrasing used throughout but accompanied by original explanations Insightful and appropriate selection of theory from agood range of current and relevant sources tosystematically build and justifyanalysis. Minimum paraphrasing Integration and originality in the selection and handling of relevant theory to build and justify analysis. Wide range of current and relevant sources integrated in systematic way.

The marking guide will be as follows: Research – extent and application 30% Analysis 30% Recommendations/conclusions 30% Presentation 10% Total mark will be scaled to a mark out of 30 subject marks.

Assessment Type: Auditing case study – 2500 + 10% word report - individual assessment. Purpose: To allow students to demonstrate their ability to research, critically analyse trends and issues in auditing and assurance services, identifying problems as would arise in a modern organisation. This assessment relates to learning outcomes a, b and c. Value:30% Due Date: Week 10 – 11:59 pm Thursday of Week10