What happens if the assurance provider disagrees with our numbers?

Disagreement is normally resolved before it reaches the conclusion: the practitioner raises a query, you produce more evidence or adjust the number, and the file moves on. A modified conclusion only arrives if you decline to adjust something material, or if they cannot obtain the evidence they need. The second case is far more common in a first year and is entirely preventable through documentation.

What is the materiality threshold for climate disclosures?

There is no prescribed number. Under AASB S2, information is material if omitting or misstating it could reasonably be expected to influence users' decisions. Separately, your assurance practitioner sets a quantitative materiality for testing, and the two are related but different.

Glossary›Assurance, audit evidence and working papers›Modified / qualified conclusion

Glossary term

Cluster A · A34

Tier 1 · differentiator

Modified / qualified conclusion

Definition

A modified conclusion is an assurance conclusion that is not clean. It arises when the practitioner finds a material misstatement that management will not correct, or cannot obtain sufficient evidence. Forms include a qualified conclusion, an adverse conclusion and a disclaimer. The assurance report is lodged with the sustainability report and is publicly visible.

Corporations Act 2001 section 301A

· ASSA 5000 ·

In force

On this page

In practice
What the assurer does with it
Sources
Related terms
Related questions

Cluster

A · Assurance, audit evidence and working papers, 47 terms

In practice

Three gradations. A qualified conclusion means everything is fine except a specific identified matter. An adverse conclusion means the disclosures as a whole are materially misstated. A disclaimer means the practitioner could not obtain enough evidence to conclude at all.

For a first-time reporter the realistic risk is a qualification arising from a completeness gap or a scope limitation, not an adverse conclusion. The consequence is reputational and regulatory rather than legal in the first instance: the modification is public, ASIC reads it, and the audit committee has to explain it.

What the assurer does with it

The practitioner does not modify without warning. The sequence is a finding raised, management given an opportunity to correct, escalation to the audit committee, and only then a modification. Entities lose the ability to correct when the finding arrives too close to the lodgement date, which is the argument for resolving evidence problems before the engagement rather than during it.