CPA AUD Simulations: Reconcile Conflicting Exhibits (2027 Prep)

When CPA AUD exhibits appear to conflict, connect each fact to its source, period and scope before deciding that one document replaces another. Keep the difference visible.

A later date can identify a correction or simply a later observation, and the distinction matters when your explanation concerns an earlier balance. AICPA's overview of the current CPA Exam describes task-based simulations as applied work with scenarios that can include documents, communications and data. This article offers a study workflow. Our fictional inventory notes illustrate that workflow without reproducing an exam task, prescribing an official reading order or asking you to complete a scored simulation.

The worked exhibit map (CSV) identifies what each invented document says, while the conditional reconciliation log (CSV) keeps assumptions beside the arithmetic. Both are teaching records. Use the blank exhibit explanation record (CSV) for your own explanation, leaving confidential engagement information and exam content out of the file.

State the period and output you need

Suppose your study notes concern quantities at fictional Lantern Parts on September 30. Write that date down. An explanation of conflicting quantity records needs a source trail and unresolved facts, rather than an unsupported financial statement adjustment based only on two numbers that differ.

AICPA's exam-content page lists AUD across two multiple-choice testlets followed by three task-based-simulation testlets, containing two, three and two simulations. That structure is current public context. It does not tell you how many exhibits a particular task will contain, how long each will take or what response format you will receive.

In an authorized practice resource, read its actual requirement and entry instructions before transferring a number into a response. Follow those instructions. Our comparison record has no exam response fields and establishes no scoring convention for blanks, signs or rounding.

Map what the documents actually describe

Lantern's September 30 count sheet lists 80 units in the main room. Preserve that location label. A spreadsheet exported October 2 lists 92 units and labels its scope all locations at September 30, so its preparation date differs from the period it claims to describe. Those two quantities describe different scopes.

They might be reconcilable. A memo prepared October 3 says that 12 units in a repair annex were excluded from the main-room sheet, but the memo's authority and its relationship to the September 30 records remain unverified.

Keep the memo as a separate source instead of quietly rewriting the count sheet to include the annex. The original map records the supplied claim. It leaves actual audit results blank, and none of its entries establishes that the inventory exists, belongs to Lantern or has an appropriate valuation.

Show a possible reconciliation with its conditions

Using the supplied quantities, 80 main-room units plus 12 annex units equals 92 units. Label the conditions beside that sum. The comparison works only if the annex figure concerns the same date and population, the two locations do not overlap, and their quantities are appropriate for the comparison.

Numerical agreement alone cannot verify those conditions. Check the source support. A spreadsheet total and a memo can repeat the same mistaken input, so their agreement does not independently establish that all inventory was counted or that a location was excluded correctly. Our conditional log therefore describes a possible scope explanation and keeps its validation status unverified.

It is not completed audit evidence. The first row records the arithmetic, with the follow-up still proposed and no result or reviewer date invented.

Test the claimed correction without erasing the earlier record

A sheet prepared October 4 says that the main-room count should be 78 units and that it supersedes the earlier 80-unit sheet. Record both versions.

Its later date and supersedes label identify a claim to investigate, rather than independently proving that it is authorized or applies to September 30. If that correction is valid for the same population and the annex quantity remains valid at 12, the combined quantity would be 90 units. Calculate it explicitly. Seventy-eight plus 12 equals 90, leaving a difference of two units against the spreadsheet's 92-unit total.

Leave that difference unresolved. The supplied notes do not establish whether the spreadsheet includes an error, the correction has the wrong scope or another fact explains the gap, and a two-unit difference alone cannot establish a dollar misstatement or its materiality.

An October 7 photograph is also in our invented document list, but it supplies no quantity and depicts a later day. Keep its limitation visible. Even a clear picture of a shelf on October 7 would not, by itself, settle the quantity present on September 30.

Use reliability guidance to evaluate the difference

PCAOB AS 1105, paragraphs .06-.10A and .29 connects evidence quality to relevance and reliability, including the source and circumstances in which information is obtained. This tutorial assumes that framework. Company-produced information requires evaluation of its accuracy, completeness and detail, and inconsistent evidence or doubts about reliability require procedures to resolve the matter and consideration of effects elsewhere in the audit. That does not create an automatic newest-document rule.

Name the unresolved fact. In Lantern's case, confirming the correction's authority and applicable period is a proposed evidence need, with the actual procedure and result still absent from our teaching record.

A different engagement may use a different governing framework, so check the current requirements in your authorized AUD instruction. Keep that source beside your explanation. This article does not substitute PCAOB wording silently for AU-C requirements or prescribe a real engagement's procedures.

Review the explanation by following each input back

For your next study review, trace the 80, 12 and 78 quantities to their separate records and describe why the 92 and 90 comparisons depend on different assumptions. Preserve the unresolved two units. That explanation shows the reasoning you need to revisit, even when you cannot yet support a final conclusion.

If a new fact changes the annex date or the correction's scope, revise the affected comparison and retain the earlier version's source trail. Record what changed. A number copied into notes without its location or period cannot tell you which calculation needs reconsideration.

Use the current official exam-content page to select resources appropriate to your intended testing date, then check the relevant lesson in your authorized course. Confirm the framework there. We have not inspected the linked blueprint PDFs or verified a detailed AUD task crosswalk, and the preparation year in this title does not establish the contents of a future exam.

2027 preparation edition. Current public HTML checked October 12, 2026. Lantern Parts, documents, dates, quantities and workflow are original teaching illustrations, not an actual inventory audit or released simulation. All source validation and audit results remain unverified. Conditional arithmetic does not establish quantity accuracy, ownership, valuation, a financial statement adjustment or materiality. PCAOB framework only. Blueprint PDFs, assessment and worksheet destinations not inspected. Qualified CPA subject review, matching AUD hub and current-source/live checks required before publication.