Not every useful examiner report describes a disaster. The real November 2024 ICAG Audit & Assurance Chief Examiner’s Report describes a genuinely strong paper — 130 candidates sat it, 111 passed, an 85.38% pass rate. And yet, inside that strong result, the examiner names one specific, recurring confusion that even well-prepared candidates fell into. This post breaks down exactly what it is, using the real scenarios from the real paper.
What the Report Actually Said
The report’s Strengths & Weaknesses section is precise: “Most Candidates demonstrated strengths in questions 1, 3 and 5 and scored higher marks” — note that Question 5 itself is listed as a strength overall — but the same section then names specific sub-parts within otherwise-strong questions where “some candidates struggled”: “Question 5(a) test of control and method for testing controls. Question 5(b) Substantive testing.” The report closes the point with an important caveat: “However, these weaknesses did not affect majority of candidates who have prepared well to obtain a pass mark of fifty.” This is not a story about widespread failure — it’s a story about a specific, nameable gap inside otherwise solid performance.
The Governing Principle
Question Five(a) gave the real scenario of Oboshie Audit Firm auditing Abakah Manufacturing LTD, a company that relies heavily on its internal control system. Candidates had to explain two tests of control and then, separately, identify a method for each — and the examiner’s own phrasing, “test of control AND method for testing controls,” signals that these are two distinct things being asked for in the same sub-question. The real marking scheme pairs Approval of Transactions (the test: verifying significant transactions are authorised) with Inspection (the method: examining a sample of purchase orders for signatures), and pairs Segregation of Duties (the test: no single individual controls all aspects of a transaction) with Observation (the method: watching the cash-handling process directly). A test of control names what is being verified about a control. A method names how you gather evidence that it happened — Inspection, Observation, Enquiry, Reperformance, Recalculation.
Question Five(b) then moved to an entirely different category: Baaba & Associates auditing Rashida LTD’s accounts receivable balance, requiring substantive tests — procedures that check whether a monetary figure in the financial statements is actually correct, rather than whether a control operated. The real marking scheme lists four: Confirmation of Accounts Receivable (third-party confirmation letters sent directly to customers), Subsequent Cash Receipts Testing (checking bank records for payments received after year-end), Aging Analysis (reviewing how overdue balances are and questioning collectability), and Cut-Off Testing (verifying sales and receivables are recorded in the correct accounting period).
Where the Marks Are Lost
Together, Question Five(a) and 5(b) were worth 10 of the question’s 20 marks. Because all three ideas — test of control, testing method, substantive test — share overlapping vocabulary (all involve the word “test,” all are forms of audit evidence-gathering), candidates who understand each concept individually can still lose marks by answering the wrong category: naming a method when a test of control’s objective was asked for, or drifting into control-testing language once the question has already moved on to substantive procedures for a balance. The examiner’s framing makes the shape of the loss clear: this is not a case of candidates lacking the underlying knowledge. It is a case of well-prepared candidates answering a precisely-worded question imprecisely.
Exam Tip: Before answering any internal-controls question, ask yourself: is this asking what control is being checked (test of control), how I’d gather evidence it operated (method — Inspection, Observation, Enquiry, Reperformance, Recalculation), or whether a balance is correct (substantive test, keyed to assertions like existence, completeness, and valuation)? Answer that question first, silently, before writing.
Conclusion
An 85.38% pass rate is a genuinely strong result, and this is not a paper to be alarmed about. But the examiner’s own report shows that even strong candidates carry a specific, well-documented vocabulary confusion into the exam hall, and it cost marks on half of a 20-mark question. Fix the distinction — test of control, method, substantive test, each in its own labelled place — and a comfortable pass becomes a genuinely strong script.
Ready to Go Deeper?
This exact distinction — and every other internal controls and substantive testing trap examiners repeat sitting after sitting — is covered live inside our classes. Join a live class at Profs Study Mate.
For free weekly study tips and exam breakdowns like this one, join the Profs Accountancy Solutions newsletter — and if you’d rather study from a physical textbook, our Audit & Assurance materials are available in hardcopy and digital formats, plus on encrypted pen drive for offline study.
