During the review of an organization's retail fraud deterrence program, an employee mentions that an...

In internal auditing, evidence must meet certain criteria to support conclusions and recommendations. According to IIA guidance, evidence should be sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful. In this scenario, the internal auditor concludes that additional staff are needed to fully utilize a fraud surveillance system based on an employee’s statement. However, the conclusion may lack sufficient evidence to support it.

IIA Standard 2310 – Identifying Information:

This standard requires that internal auditors identify sufficient, reliable, relevant, and useful information to achieve the engagement’s objectives. "Sufficiency" refers to the quantity of evidence necessary to convince an informed person of the validity of the auditor’s findings and recommendations.

Sufficiency of Evidence:

The auditor's conclusion about the need for additional staff is based on a single employee’s remark, which is not sufficient evidence. The auditor would need to gather more evidence, such as analyzing workload data, reviewing system logs, or assessing staff capacity, to support the conclusion fully.

IIA Practice Advisory 2310-1:

This advisory emphasizes the need for auditors to obtain enough factual evidence to support their findings. Relying solely on anecdotal evidence from one employee does not meet the standard for sufficiency.

Option B (Reliability): Reliability refers to the accuracy and credibility of the evidence. The employee's statement might be credible but still insufficient in quantity.

Option C (Relevancy): The employee’s comment is relevant to the issue, but relevancy alone does not make the evidence sufficient.

Option D (Usefulness): The information could be useful, but it lacks the sufficiency needed to justify the auditor’s conclusion.

Detailed Explanation:Why Not Other Options?