Criteria for Consistent Evaluation in Professional Judgment

Suitable criteria are required for consistent evaluation of a subject matter within professional judgment.

Without suitable criteria, conclusions are not open to individual interpretation and misunderstanding.

Different responsible parties can select the same criteria for the subject matter of customer satisfaction.

Suitable criteria should exhibit characteristics such as relevance, completeness, and reliability.

Complete criteria do not need to include benchmarks for presentation and disclosure.

Reliable criteria allow inconsistent evaluation of the subject matter when used in similar circumstances by differently qualified practitioners.

An appropriate subject matter must be capable of consistent evaluation against identified criteria.

Less formal criteria can include internally developed codes of conduct.

In reporting on compliance, the criteria may be an established internal control framework.

Suitable criteria are only formal and cannot include less formal benchmarks.

Three Party Relationship is a key element in the preparation of financial statements.

Assurance report notes characteristics relevant to the intended users only.

Established criteria are always embodied in laws or regulations.

Specifically developed criteria are suitable if they are based on the practitioner's own expectations.

The relative importance of each characteristic of criteria is fixed and not a matter of judgment.

Criteria for an engagement can only be established and not specifically developed.

Intended users should not have access to criteria used for evaluating the subject matter.

Transparent due process is only followed when establishing criteria; specifically developed criteria do not require transparency.