E01¶


Research	R0050 — Journalism and Other Truth-Seeking Disciplines
Run	2026-03-31
Query	Q002
Source	SRC03
Evidence	SRC03-E01
Type	Factual

PCAOB AS 1105 formalizes evidence sufficiency and appropriateness with context-dependent reliability factors but explicitly avoids a rigid hierarchy.

URL: https://pcaobus.org/oversight/standards/auditing-standards/details/AS1105

Extract¶

Key AS 1105 concepts:

Sufficiency: Quantity of evidence, increasing with risk level
Appropriateness: Quality and reliability of evidence
Reliability factors (qualitative, not hierarchical):
Independent external sources more reliable than internal
Auditor-obtained evidence more reliable than indirect
Original documents more reliable than copies
Effective internal controls increase reliability of company information
Risk-proportionate evidence: As risk increases, evidence quantity must increase; higher quality evidence reduces quantity needed
Inquiry limitation: Inquiry alone never sufficient for any assertion

Novel concept assessment: The sufficiency/appropriateness framework parallels GRADE's evidence quality assessment. The reliability factors parallel source evaluation in multiple frameworks. The risk-proportionate evidence concept is captured by GRADE's context-sensitive recommendations. The inquiry limitation is analogous to the "corroboration required" principle in ICD 203.

Conclusion: Auditing's core evidence evaluation concepts are largely captured by existing frameworks. The formalization of sufficiency as a function of both risk and quality is the most distinctive contribution, but GRADE addresses this through evidence quality affecting recommendation strength.

Relevance to Hypotheses¶

Hypothesis	Relationship	Strength
H1	N/A	Auditing has structured evidence evaluation but concepts are not genuinely novel
H2	Supports	Auditing's concepts are captured by existing frameworks
H3	Supports	Auditing falls in the "already captured" category with minor refinements

Context¶

PCAOB/GAAS auditing standards represent a highly formalized evidence evaluation framework, but they operate in the same epistemic tradition as science: evaluating evidence for reliability and sufficiency to support conclusions. The nine frameworks already cover this terrain.