Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity Ugh­dar­ras Pàirc Nàiseanta a’ Mhon­aidh Ruaidh

Paper 1 Annex 1 13 March 2026

Paper 1

Annex 1

Annu­al Audit Plan Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity – Year end­ing 31 March 2026 March 2026

for­vis mazars

for­vis mazars

Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity 14 The Square Grant­own-On-Spey PH26 3HG 4 March 2026

For­vis Maz­ars 100 Queen Street Glas­gow G1 3DN

Dear Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee Mem­bers, Annu­al Audit Plan – Year end­ing 31 March 2026

I am pleased to present our Annu­al Audit Plan (“AAP”) for Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) for the year end­ing 31 March 2026.

This doc­u­ment will be presen­ted at the Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee meet­ing on 13 March 2026. If you would like to dis­cuss any mat­ters in more detail, please con­tact me on 0781 6354 994.

This report provides an over­view of the planned scope and tim­ing of our audit, includ­ing the sig­ni­fic­ant and enhanced audit risks we have iden­ti­fied. In addi­tion, as it is a fun­da­ment­al require­ment that we are, and are seen to be, inde­pend­ent of the Park Author­ity this report also sum­mar­ises our con­sid­er­a­tions and con­clu­sions on our independence.

Two-way com­mu­nic­a­tion with you is key to a suc­cess­ful audit and is import­ant in:

• Reach­ing a mutu­al under­stand­ing of the scope of our audit and our respect­ive responsibilities,
• Shar­ing inform­a­tion to assist each of us with ful­filling our respect­ive responsibilities,
• Provid­ing you with con­struct­ive obser­va­tions arising dur­ing our audit, and
• Ensur­ing that we gain an under­stand­ing of your atti­tude and views in respect of the risks facing the Park Author­ity which may affect our audit, includ­ing the like­li­hood of those risks mater­i­al­ising and how they are mon­itored and managed.

For­vis Maz­ars LLP – 100 Queen Street, Glas­gow, G1 3DN — Tel: 0141 227 2400 — www​.for​v​is​maz​ars​.com/uk For­vis Maz­ars LLP is the UK firm of For­vis Maz­ars Glob­al, a lead­ing glob­al pro­fes­sion­al ser­vices net­work. For­vis Maz­ars LLP is a lim­ited liab­il­ity part­ner­ship registered in Eng­land and Wales with registered num­ber OC308299 and with its registered office at 30 Old Bailey, Lon­don, EC4M 7AU. Registered to carry on audit work in the UK by the Insti­tute of Chartered Account­ants in Eng­land and Wales. Details about our audit regis­tra­tion can be viewed at www​.auditre​gister​.org​.uk under ref­er­ence num­ber C001139861. VAT num­ber: GB 839 8356 73

for­vis mazars

Annu­al Audit Plan – Year end­ing 31 March 2026 (con­tin­ued)

This report, which we have pre­pared fol­low­ing our ini­tial plan­ning dis­cus­sions with man­age­ment, facil­it­ates a dis­cus­sion with you on our audit approach. We wel­come any ques­tions, con­cerns, or input you may have on our approach.

Provid­ing a high-qual­ity ser­vice is extremely import­ant to us and we strive to provide tech­nic­al excel­lence with the highest level of ser­vice qual­ity, togeth­er with con­tinu­ous improve­ment to exceed your expectations.

Dur­ing the meet­ing, we would be grate­ful for your views/​know­ledge on the fol­low­ing spe­cif­ic matters:

• Wheth­er you have iden­ti­fied any oth­er risks (busi­ness, laws & reg­u­la­tion, fraud, going con­cern, etc.) that may res­ult in mater­i­al mis­state­ments in the fin­an­cial statements.
• If you are aware of any sig­ni­fic­ant com­mu­nic­a­tions between the Park Author­ity and its regulators.
• If there are any mat­ters that you con­sider war­rant par­tic­u­lar atten­tion dur­ing our audit and/​or any areas where you would like addi­tion­al pro­ced­ures to be undertaken.

This report has been pre­pared in accord­ance with the respons­ib­il­it­ies set out with­in the Audit Scotland’s Code of Audit Prac­tice (“the Code”) and for the sole bene­fit of The Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee. Except where required by law or reg­u­la­tion, it should not be used, quoted or made avail­able to any oth­er parties without our pri­or writ­ten consent.

Yours faith­fully,

T.Reid Tom Reid For­vis Maz­ars LLP

For­vis Maz­ars LLP – 100 Queen Street, Glas­gow, G1 3DN — Tel: 0141 227 2400 — www​.for​v​is​maz​ars​.com/uk For­vis Maz­ars LLP is the UK firm of For­vis Maz­ars Glob­al, a lead­ing glob­al pro­fes­sion­al ser­vices net­work. For­vis Maz­ars LLP is a lim­ited liab­il­ity part­ner­ship registered in Eng­land and Wales with registered num­ber OC308299 and with its registered office at 30 Old Bailey, Lon­don, EC4M 7AU. Registered to carry on audit work in the UK by the Insti­tute of Chartered Account­ants in Eng­land and Wales. Details about our audit regis­tra­tion can be viewed at www​.auditre​gister​.org​.uk under ref­er­ence num­ber C001139861. VAT num­ber: GB 839 8356 73

Con­tents

01 Engage­ment and respons­ib­il­it­ies sum­mary 02 Your audit engage­ment team 03 Audit scope, approach and timeline 04 Mater­i­al­ity and mis­state­ments 05 Sig­ni­fic­ant risks and oth­er key judge­ment areas 06 Wider scope and Best Value 07 Audit fees and oth­er ser­vices 08 Con­firm­a­tion of our independence

Appendix A – Key com­mu­nic­a­tion points Appendix B — Cur­rent year updates, forth­com­ing account­ing and oth­er issues

This doc­u­ment is to be regarded as con­fid­en­tial to Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity. It has been pre­pared for the sole use of the Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee as the appro­pri­ate com­mit­tee charged with gov­ernance. No respons­ib­il­ity is accep­ted to any oth­er per­son in respect of the whole or part of its con­tents. Our writ­ten con­sent must first be obtained before this doc­u­ment, or any part of it, is dis­closed to a third party.

for­vis maz­ars 4

Exec­ut­ive summary

Audit timeline (page 14)

Plan­ning and risk assess­ment	Feb­ru­ary 2026
Present­a­tion of Annu­al Audit Plan	13 March 2026
Inter­im work	Feb­ru­ary to March 2026
Field­work	July to August 2026
Com­ple­tion	Septem­ber to Octo­ber 2026
Present­a­tion of Annu­al Audit Report and Inde­pend­ent Auditor’s Report	2 Octo­ber 2026

Audit risks and oth­er sig­ni­fic­ant mat­ters (pages 21 — 26)

Risk	Sig­ni­fic­ant risk	Enhanced risk	Risk evol­u­tion	Page
Man­age­ment over­ride of controls	•	Ο	=	Page 23
Risk of fraud in income recognition	•	Ο	=	Page 24
Risk of fraud in expendit­ure recognition	•	Ο	=	Page 25
New fin­ance system		Ο	=	Page 26

Fees (page 32)

Audit fees	£17,400
Non-audit fees	N/A
Total fees	£17,400

Mater­i­al­ity (pages 17 — 20)

Total Gross Expendit­ure: £13,989,000

Mater­i­al­ity	Per­form­ance mater­i­al­ity	Report­ing threshold
£279,780	£195,846	£8,393

Our inde­pend­ence (page 34)

We are inde­pend­ent of the Park Author­ity in accord­ance with the eth­ic­al require­ments that are rel­ev­ant to our audit in the UK, includ­ing the FRC’s Eth­ic­al Standard.

for­vis maz­ars 5

01

Engage­ment and respons­ib­il­it­ies summary

Engage­ment and respons­ib­il­it­ies summary

We are appoin­ted to per­form the extern­al audit of Cairngorms Nation­al Park Author­ity (CNPA) for the year to 31 March 2026. The scope of our engage­ment is set out in the Code of Audit Prac­tice, issued by the Aud­it­or Gen­er­al and the Accounts Com­mis­sion avail­able from the Audit Scot­land web­site: Code of audit prac­tice | Audit Scot­land. Our respons­ib­il­it­ies are prin­cip­ally derived from the Pub­lic Fin­ance and Account­ab­il­ity (Scot­land) Act 2000 and the Code of Audit Prac­tice, as out­lined below and overleaf.

Audit opin­ion We are respons­ible for form­ing and express­ing an opin­ion on wheth­er the fin­an­cial state­ments are pre­pared, in all mater­i­al respects, in accord­ance with applic­able law and UK adop­ted inter­na­tion­al account­ing stand­ards as inter­preted and adap­ted by the ²⁰²⁵⁄₂₆ Gov­ern­ment Fin­an­cial Report­ing Manual.

Our audit does not relieve man­age­ment or the Audit and Risk Com­mit­tee, as Those Charged With Gov­ernance, of their responsibilities.

The Chief Exec­ut­ive and Account­able Officer is respons­ible for the assess­ment of CNPA’s abil­ity to con­tin­ue as a going con­cern. As aud­it­ors, we are required to obtain suf­fi­cient, appro­pri­ate audit evid­ence regard­ing, and con­clude on: a) wheth­er a mater­i­al uncer­tainty related to going con­cern exists, and b) the appro­pri­ate­ness of the Chief Exec­ut­ive and Account­able Officer’s use of the going con­cern basis of account­ing in the pre­par­a­tion of the fin­an­cial statements.

Fraud The respons­ib­il­ity for safe­guard­ing assets and for the pre­ven­tion and detec­tion of fraud, error, and non-com­pli­ance with law or reg­u­la­tions rests with both you and man­age­ment. This includes estab­lish­ing and main­tain­ing intern­al con­trols over asset pro­tec­tion, com­pli­ance with rel­ev­ant laws and reg­u­la­tions, and the reli­ab­il­ity of fin­an­cial reporting.

As part of our audit pro­ced­ures in rela­tion to fraud, we are required to inquire of you and key man­age­ment per­son­nel includ­ing intern­al audit on their know­ledge of instances of fraud, and their views on the risks of fraud and on intern­al con­trols that mit­ig­ate those risks. In accord­ance with Inter­na­tion­al Stand­ards on Audit­ing (UK), we plan and per­form our audit to obtain reas­on­able assur­ance that the fin­an­cial state­ments taken as a whole are free from mater­i­al mis­state­ment, wheth­er due to fraud or error. How­ever, our audit should not be relied upon to identi­fy all such misstatements.

for­vis maz­ars 7

Engage­ment and respons­ib­il­it­ies sum­mary (con­tin­ued)

Intern­al control Man­age­ment is respons­ible for such intern­al con­trol as man­age­ment determ­ines is neces­sary to enable the pre­par­a­tion of fin­an­cial state­ments that are free from mater­i­al mis­state­ment, wheth­er due to fraud or error. We are respons­ible for obtain­ing an under­stand­ing of intern­al con­trol rel­ev­ant to the audit in order to design audit pro­ced­ures that are appro­pri­ate in the cir­cum­stances, but not for the pur­pose of express­ing an opin­ion on the effect­ive­ness of CNPA’s intern­al control.

Wider scope and Best Value We are also respons­ible for review­ing and report­ing on the wider scope arrange­ments that CNPA has in place and its arrange­ments to secure Best Value. We dis­cuss our approach to wider scope and Best Value work fur­ther in the ​‘Wider scope and Best Value’ sec­tion of this report.

for­vis maz­ars 8

02

Your audit engage­ment team

Your audit team

Tom Reid Engage­ment Dir­ect­or Tom.​Reid@​mazars.​co.​uk 07816 354 994

Caleb Oguche Engage­ment Man­ager Caleb.​Oguche@​mazars.​co.​uk 07974 124 504

Gregor Chalmers Team Lead­er Gregor.​Chalmers@​mazars.​co.​uk 07977 570 378

for­vis maz­ars 10

03

Audit scope, approach, and timeline

Audit scope, approach, and timeline (con­tin­ued)

Audit scope

Our audit approach is designed to provide an audit that com­plies with all pro­fes­sion­al requirements.

Our audit of the fin­an­cial state­ments will be con­duc­ted in accord­ance with Inter­na­tion­al Stand­ards on Audit­ing (UK), rel­ev­ant eth­ic­al and pro­fes­sion­al stand­ards, our own audit meth­od­o­logy, and in accord­ance with the terms of our engage­ment. Our work is focused on those aspects of your busi­ness which we con­sider to have a high­er risk of mater­i­al mis­state­ment, such as those impacted by man­age­ment judge­ment and estim­a­tion, applic­a­tion of new account­ing stand­ards, changes of account­ing policy, changes to oper­a­tions, or areas found to con­tain mater­i­al errors in the past.

Audit approach

Our audit approach is risk-based, and the nature, extent, and tim­ing of our audit pro­ced­ures are primar­ily driv­en by the areas of the fin­an­cial state­ments we con­sider to be more sus­cept­ible to mater­i­al mis­state­ment. Fol­low­ing our risk assess­ment where we assess the inher­ent risk factors (sub­jectiv­ity, com­plex­ity, uncer­tainty, change and sus­cept­ib­il­ity to mis­state­ment due to man­age­ment bias or fraud) to aid in our risk assess­ment, we devel­op our audit strategy and design audit pro­ced­ures to respond to the risks we have identified.

If we con­clude that appro­pri­ately designed con­trols are in place, we may plan to test and rely on those con­trols. If we decide con­trols are not appro­pri­ately designed, or we decide that it would be more effi­cient to do so, we may take a wholly sub­stant­ive approach to our audit test­ing where, in our pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment, sub­stant­ive pro­ced­ures alone will provide suf­fi­cient appro­pri­ate audit evid­ence. Sub­stant­ive pro­ced­ures are audit pro­ced­ures designed to detect mater­i­al mis­state­ments at the asser­tion level and com­prise tests of detail (of classes of trans­ac­tion, account bal­ances, and dis­clos­ures), and sub­stant­ive ana­lyt­ic­al pro­ced­ures. Irre­spect­ive of our assessed risks of mater­i­al mis­state­ment, which takes account of our eval­u­ation of the oper­at­ing effect­ive­ness of con­trols, we are required to design and per­form sub­stant­ive pro­ced­ures for each mater­i­al class of trans­ac­tion, account bal­ance, and disclosure.

Our audit has been planned and will be per­formed to provide reas­on­able assur­ance that the fin­an­cial state­ments are free from mater­i­al mis­state­ment and give a true and fair view. The concept of mater­i­al­ity and how we define a mis­state­ment is explained in the ​‘Mater­i­al­ity and mis­state­ments’ sec­tion of this report.

The dia­gram on the next page out­lines the pro­ced­ures we per­form at the dif­fer­ent stages of our audit. We have also provided, later in this report, a table set­ting out the pro­ced­ures we per­form for the sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial state­ment areas.

Reli­ance on intern­al audit

Where pos­sible, we will use the work per­formed by intern­al audit when design­ing the nature, extent, and tim­ing of our audit pro­ced­ures. We will dis­cuss with intern­al audit the pro­gress of their work and their find­ings pri­or to com­men­cing our con­trols eval­u­ation procedures.

Where we intend to rely on the work on intern­al audit, we will eval­u­ate the work per­formed by them and per­form our own pro­ced­ures to determ­ine the adequacy of that work for our audit.

for­vis maz­ars 12

Audit scope, approach, and timeline (con­tin­ued)

Management’s and our experts

Man­age­ment makes use of experts in spe­cif­ic areas when pre­par­ing the CNPA’s fin­an­cial state­ments. We also use experts to assist us to obtain suf­fi­cient appro­pri­ate audit evid­ence on spe­cif­ic items of account.

Item of account	Management’s expert	Our expert
Cash Equi­val­ent Trans­fer Val­ues for seni­or man­age­ment team pen­sion bene­fits dis­closed in the Remu­ner­a­tion and Staff Report	Cap­ita	We have iden­ti­fied Deloitte as an auditor’s expert. Deloitte per­form an annu­al review of the approach adop­ted by Cap­ita in its cal­cu­la­tion of CETV pen­sion values.

Ser­vice organisations

Inter­na­tion­al Audit­ing Stand­ards (UK) (ISAs) define ser­vice organ­isa­tions as third party organ­isa­tions that provide ser­vices to CNPA that are part of its inform­a­tion sys­tems rel­ev­ant to fin­an­cial report­ing. We are required to obtain an under­stand­ing of the ser­vices provided by ser­vice organ­isa­tions as well as eval­u­at­ing the design and imple­ment­a­tion of con­trols over those services.

We are not aware, from our plan­ning pro­ced­ures and enquir­ies of man­age­ment, that CNPA uses any ser­vice organisations.

for­vis maz­ars 13

Audit scope, approach, and timeline

Plan­ning and risk assessment Feb­ru­ary 2026

• Plan­ning our vis­it and devel­op­ing our under­stand­ing of the entity
• Risk iden­ti­fic­a­tion and assessment
• Con­sid­er­ing pro­posed account­ing policies and account­ing treatments
• Devel­op­ing our audit strategy and plan­ning the audit work to be performed
• Agree­ing timetable and deadlines
• Pre­lim­in­ary ana­lyt­ic­al review
• Determ­in­a­tion of materiality
• Under­take plan­ning work for our wider scope and Best Value responsibilities

Inter­im Feb­ru­ary to March 2026

• Doc­u­ment­ing Key sys­tems and controls
• Per­form­ing walkthroughs
• IT gen­er­al con­trols testing
• IT applic­a­tion con­trols testing
• Reas­sess­ment of our audit strategy (and revis­ing if necessary)
• Early sub­stant­ive test­ing of transactions
• Col­late evid­ence to sup­port our wider scope and Best Value work, includ­ing obtain­ing key doc­u­ments and con­firm­ing our under­stand­ing of arrange­ments in place, includ­ing con­sid­er­a­tion of wheth­er a sig­ni­fic­ant risk exists.

Field­work July to August 2026

• Receiv­ing and review­ing the draft fin­an­cial statements
• Execut­ing our strategy, start­ing with sig­ni­fic­ant risks and oth­er high­er-risk areas
• Use of data ana­lyt­ics for test­ing journal
• Form a view on the adequacy of CNPA’s arrange­ments for fin­an­cial sus­tain­ab­il­ity and in rela­tion to secur­ing Best Value.

Com­mu­nic­a­tion Through­out the audit

• Com­mu­nic­at­ing pro­gress and any issues arising
• Clear­ance meeting(s)

Com­ple­tion Septem­ber to Octo­ber 2026

• Final review of fin­an­cial state­ments, and dis­clos­ure checklist
• Final engage­ment dir­ect­or review
• Agree­ing the con­tent of the let­ter of representation
• Pre­par­ing our auditor’s report
• Report­ing to the Audit and Risk Committee
• Sub­sequent events procedures
• Sign­ing our auditor’s report

for­vis maz­ars 14

Audit scope, approach, and timeline (con­tin­ued)

Audit approach for sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial state­ment areas

Our audit approach on sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial state­ment areas is set out below.

Fin­an­cial state­ment area	Sig­ni­fic­ant risk	Key judge­ment area or enhanced risk	Test­ing of con­trols	Sub­stant­ive Pro­ced­ures	Com­ments
Oper­a­tion­al plan income	Yes	No	No	Yes	See page 24 for details of sig­ni­fic­ant risk
Board and staff costs	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Oper­a­tion­al plan expenditure	Yes	No	No	Yes	See page 25 for details of sig­ni­fic­ant risk
Oth­er oper­at­ing costs	Yes	No	No	Yes	See page 25 for details of sig­ni­fic­ant risk
Depre­ci­ation, amort­isa­tion and impair­ment charges	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Tan­gible assets	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Right of use assets	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Intan­gible assets	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Trade and oth­er receivables	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Cash and cash equivalents	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Trade and oth­er payables	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	See page 25 for details of sig­ni­fic­ant risk

for­vis maz­ars 15

Audit scope, approach, and timeline (con­tin­ued)

Audit approach for sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial state­ment areas (con­tin­ued)

Our audit approach on sig­ni­fic­ant fin­an­cial state­ment areas is set out below.

Fin­an­cial state­ment area (Dis­clos­ures)	Sig­ni­fic­ant risk	Key judge­ment area or enhanced risk	Test­ing of con­trols	Sub­stant­ive Pro­ced­ures	Com­ments
State­ment of Cash Flows	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Related party transactions	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Cap­it­al com­mit­ments, con­tin­gent assets and con­tin­gent liabilities	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Per­form­ance Report	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Gov­ernance Statement	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
Remu­ner­a­tion and Staff Report	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk
State­ment of Changes in Tax­pay­ers’ Equity	No	No	No	Yes	Stand­ard risk

for­vis maz­ars 16

04

Mater­i­al­ity and misstatements

Mater­i­al­ity and misstatements

Defin­i­tions

Mater­i­al­ity is an expres­sion of the rel­at­ive sig­ni­fic­ance or import­ance of a par­tic­u­lar mat­ter in the con­text of the fin­an­cial state­ments as a whole.

Mis­state­ments in the fin­an­cial state­ments are con­sidered to be mater­i­al if they could, indi­vidu­ally or in aggreg­ate, reas­on­ably be expec­ted to influ­ence the eco­nom­ic decisions of users based on the fin­an­cial statements.

Mater­i­al­ity

We determ­ine mater­i­al­ity for the fin­an­cial state­ments as a whole (over­all mater­i­al­ity) using a bench­mark that, in our pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment, is most appro­pri­ate to the entity. We also determ­ine an amount less than mater­i­al­ity (per­form­ance mater­i­al­ity), which is applied when we carry out our audit pro­ced­ures and is designed to reduce to an appro­pri­ately low level the prob­ab­il­ity that the aggreg­ate of uncor­rec­ted and undetec­ted mis­state­ments exceeds over­all mater­i­al­ity. Fur­ther, we set a threshold above which all mis­state­ments we identi­fy dur­ing our audit (adjus­ted and unad­jus­ted) will be repor­ted to the Audit and Risk Committee.

Judge­ments on mater­i­al­ity are made in light of sur­round­ing cir­cum­stances and are affected by the size and nature of a mis­state­ment, or a com­bin­a­tion of both. Judge­ments about mater­i­al­ity are based on a con­sid­er­a­tion of the com­mon fin­an­cial inform­a­tion needs of users as a group and not on spe­cif­ic indi­vidu­al users.

An assess­ment of what is mater­i­al is a mat­ter of pro­fes­sion­al judge­ment and is affected by our per­cep­tion of the fin­an­cial inform­a­tion needs of the users of the fin­an­cial state­ments. In mak­ing our assess­ment we assume that users:

• Have a reas­on­able know­ledge of busi­ness, eco­nom­ic activ­it­ies, and accounts;
• Have a will­ing­ness to study the inform­a­tion in the fin­an­cial state­ments with reas­on­able diligence;
• Under­stand that fin­an­cial state­ments are pre­pared, presen­ted, and audited to levels of materiality;
• Recog­nise the uncer­tain­ties inher­ent in the meas­ure­ment of amounts based on the use of estim­ates, judge­ment, and con­sid­er­a­tion of future events; and
• Will make reas­on­able eco­nom­ic decisions based on the inform­a­tion in the fin­an­cial statements.

We con­sider over­all mater­i­al­ity and per­form­ance mater­i­al­ity while plan­ning and per­form­ing our audit based on quant­it­at­ive and qual­it­at­ive factors.

When plan­ning our audit, we make judge­ments about the size of mis­state­ments we con­sider to be mater­i­al. This provide a basis for our risk assess­ment pro­ced­ures, includ­ing identi­fy­ing and assess­ing the risks of mater­i­al mis­state­ment, and determ­in­ing the nature, tim­ing and extent of our responses to those risks.

The over­all mater­i­al­ity and per­form­ance mater­i­al­ity that we determ­ine does not neces­sar­ily mean that uncor­rec­ted mis­state­ments that are below mater­i­al­ity, indi­vidu­ally or in aggreg­ate, will be con­sidered immaterial.

We revise mater­i­al­ity as our audit pro­gresses should we become aware of inform­a­tion that would have caused us to determ­ine a dif­fer­ent amount had we been aware of that inform­a­tion at the plan­ning stage.

for­vis maz­ars 18

Mater­i­al­ity and mis­state­ments (con­tin­ued)

Mater­i­al­ity (con­tin­ued)

We con­sider that total oper­at­ing expendit­ure is the key focus of users of the fin­an­cial state­ments. We have there­fore determ­ined our ini­tial mater­i­al­ity levels using total oper­at­ing expendit­ure as