Vol. 14 No. 3 (2026): Business & Management Studies: An International Journal
Articles

Toward an extended assurance infrastructure: Examining document, risk, and evidence traceability in independent audit files

PDF (Turkish)
  • Mustafa Terzioğlu
Mustafa Terzioğlu
Lect. Dr., Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkiye
Bio

Published 2026-09-25

Keywords

  • Bağımsız Denetim, Genişletilmiş Güvence, Dijital Denetim Dosyası, Denetim Kanıtı
  • Independent Auditing, Extended Assurance, Digital Audit File, Audit Evidence JEL Codes: M42, M41, M15

How to Cite

Toward an extended assurance infrastructure: Examining document, risk, and evidence traceability in independent audit files. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1456-1480. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2830

Copyright (c) 2026 Mustafa Terzioğlu

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

How to Cite

Toward an extended assurance infrastructure: Examining document, risk, and evidence traceability in independent audit files. (2026). Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 14(3), 1456-1480. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v14i3.2830

Abstract

This study examines the digitalization potential of a single company’s independent audit file for the 2025 financial year within an extended assurance framework. A qualitative single-case study design using document analysis was adopted. Working papers, risk assessments, tests of controls, tests of details, external confirmations, financial statements, information technology documents, and the auditor’s report were examined through content analysis, process mapping, and an analytical evaluation matrix. The findings suggest that the file provides a strong initial data infrastructure for risk-procedure-evidence traceability. The Extended Assurance Potential Score was calculated as 3.83. This exploratory assessment indicates the file’s potential to become a digital assurance infrastructure and is not a validated audit quality measure. The auditor’s report was found to reflect the volume of evidence in the file only to a limited extent. The study suggests that digitalization may support professional judgment and evidence evaluation rather than replace the auditor.

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Abu Al Rob, M., Mohd Nor, M. N., & Salleh, Z. (2024). The influence of big data analytics adoption on auditors’ professional skepticism in risk assessment: An empirical study using the technology acceptance model. Journal of Logistics, Informatics and Service Science, 11(11), 158–177. https://doi.org/10.33168/JLISS.2024.1110
  2. Appelbaum, D., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2017). Big data and analytics in the modern audit engagement: Research needs. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 36(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-51684
  3. Appelbaum, D. A., Kogan, A., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2018). Analytical procedures in external auditing: A comprehensive literature survey and framework for external audit analytics. Journal of Accounting Literature, 40(1), 83–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acclit.2018.01.001
  4. Barr-Pulliam, D., Brown-Liburd, H. L., & Sanderson, K.-A. (2022). The effects of the internal control opinion and use of audit data analytics on perceptions of audit quality, assurance, and auditor negligence. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 41(1), 25–48. https://doi.org/10.2308/AJPT-19-064
  5. Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
  6. Cao, M., Chychyla, R., & Stewart, T. (2015). Big data analytics in financial statement audits. Accounting Horizons, 29(2), 423–429. https://doi.org/10.2308/acch-51068
  7. DeFond, M., & Zhang, J. (2014). A review of archival auditing research. Journal of Accounting and Economics, 58(2–3), 275–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacceco.2014.09.002
  8. Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14(4), 532–550. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308385
  9. Fisher, I. E., Garnsey, M. R., & Hughes, M. E. (2016). Natural language processing in accounting, auditing and finance: A synthesis of the literature with a roadmap for future research. Intelligent Systems in Accounting, Finance and Management, 23(3), 157–214. https://doi.org/10.1002/isaf.1386
  10. Francis, J. R. (2011). A framework for understanding and researching audit quality. Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 30(2), 125–152. https://doi.org/10.2308/ajpt-50006
  11. Gönen, S. (2016). Bağımsız denetimde çalışma kağıtlarının 230 No’lu Türkiye Denetim Standardı açısından incelenmesi. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(7), 1792–1808. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.259185
  12. Issa, H., Sun, T., & Vasarhelyi, M. A. (2016). Research ideas for artificial intelligence in auditing: The formalization of audit and workforce supplementation. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Accounting, 13(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.2308/jeta-10511
  13. Joshi, A., Kale, S., Chandel, S., & Pal, D. K. (2015). Likert scale: Explored and explained. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology, 7(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/14975
  14. Kamu Gözetimi, Muhasebe ve Denetim Standartları Kurumu. (2025). 2024 yılı yıllık inceleme raporu. https://www.kgk.gov.tr/Portalv2Uploads/files/Duyurular/v2/Diger/2024%20Yıllık%20İnceleme%20Raporu.pdf
  15. Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2016). Textual analysis in accounting and finance: A survey. Journal of Accounting Research, 54(4), 1187–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-679X.12123
  16. Manita, R., Elommal, N., Baudier, P., & Hikkerova, L. (2020). The digital transformation of external audit and its impact on corporate governance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 150, Article 119751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.119751
  17. Mittelstadt, B. D., Allo, P., Taddeo, M., Wachter, S., & Floridi, L. (2016). The ethics of algorithms: Mapping the debate. Big Data & Society, 3(2), Article 2053951716679679. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716679679
  18. Porter, B. (1993). An empirical study of the audit expectation-performance gap. Accounting and Business Research, 24(93), 49–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.1993.9729463
  19. Raji, I. D., Smart, A., White, R. N., Mitchell, M., Gebru, T., Hutchinson, B., Smith-Loud, J., Theron, D., & Barnes, P. (2020). Closing the AI accountability gap: Defining an end-to-end framework for internal algorithmic auditing. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 33–44). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372873
  20. Ruhnke, K., & Schmidt, M. (2014). The audit expectation gap: Existence, causes, and the impact of changes. Accounting and Business Research, 44(5), 572–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/00014788.2014.929519
  21. Sullivan, G. M., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2013). Analyzing and interpreting data from Likert-type scales. Journal of Graduate Medical Education, 5(4), 541–542. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-5-4-18
  22. Şirin, M. (2006). Denetimde kanıt teorisi ve gelişimi. Sayıştay Dergisi, (61), 23–36. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/sayistay/article/918889
  23. Wang, X., Sun, F., Kim, M. G., & Na, H. J. (2025). Developing a novel audit risk metric through sentiment analysis. Sustainability, 17(6), Article 2460. https://doi.org/10.3390/su17062460
  24. Werner, M., & Gehrke, N. (2015). Multilevel process mining for financial audits. IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, 8(6), 820–832. https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2015.2457907
  25. Wieringa, M. (2020). What to account for when accounting for algorithms: A systematic literature review on algorithmic accountability. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency (pp. 1–18). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3351095.3372833
  26. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage.
  27. Zhong, C., & Goel, S. (2024). Transparent AI in auditing through explainable AI. Current Issues in Auditing, 18(2), A1–A14. https://doi.org/10.2308/CIIA-2023-009