Candidates were required to list substantive analytical procedures that could be used to give assurance regarding total income firstly for one day and then for one year, using the information from the scenario.

The question was worth 8 marks. The question requirement was for two sets of procedures, as noted above. As procedures were linked to the scenario, a list of 8 procedures would be sufficient to obtain 8 marks. There was no mark split between the two sub-sections hence marks could be obtained to the maximum amount in either section; most candidates split answers roughly between the two sub-sections, which was expected.

The main weakness in many answers was the lack of discrimination between substantive procedures and substantive analytical procedures. Almost all answers included one or more pure substantive procedures with a minority focusing on this type of procedure to the exclusion of analytical procedures.

In other words, many comments related to the substantive testing of the cash receipts system including counting cash in the tickets offices through to confirming the amounts recorded in the cash books to the bank statements. While these procedures were not incorrect in themselves, they were not analytical procedures required by the question.

Regarding analytical procedures, most candidates managed to compare daily/yearly income with other days/years as well as budgets, forecasts and other similar theme parks. Only a minority used other information in the scenario such as comparing ticket receipts to gift shops sales. Overall results in this section were therefore varied.

Example comments provided and reasons why those comments did not obtain a pass standard are noted below:

Answer comment 
“Trace total receipts in the cash book to the bank statement for a number of days.”

Examiners assessment of comment 
The answer is a substantive procedure rather than a substantive analytical procedure. The point is therefore not relevant because the question requirement has not been met.

Answer comment 
“Compare total daily income from all ticket offices”.

Examiners assessment of comment 
The point appears to be an analytical procedure; however, it is not clear what comparison is being made.

Additional detail showing the income from each office was being compared to other offices to identify unusual discrepancies would help the candidate obtain the mark available.

The standard of answers for this question was mixed, as noted above. Many candidates did not distinguish between substantive procedures and substantive analytical procedures as in December 08 question 1. However, it was pleasing to see some very clear answers to this section, obviously drawing on the learning experience from the December paper.