The auditor’s decision on whether to use the work of a management’s expert as audit evidence may be influenced by:

1. The nature and significance of the matter, including its complexity;
2. The risks of material misstatement in the matter;
3. The nature, timing and extent of procedures to respond to the identified risks, including the auditor’s knowledge of, and experience with, the work of the management’s experts in relation to such matters and the availability of alternative sources of audit evidence; and
4. The sources and level of detail of information available from the management’s expert. Examples of sources of information include, but are not limited to:
   1. The management expert’s report;
   2. The management expert’s working papers;
   3. The management expert’s methodologies or systems.

Audit evidence in documentary form is generally more reliable than evidence obtained orally^[13]. Where the matter is significant or complex or the risk of material misstatement is high, discussions with the management’s expert alone, may not provide an appropriate source of information for obtaining audit evidence.

Understanding the sources of audit evidence in relation to the work of a management’s expert including sufficient detail to understand the nature, timing, extent of work performed, and conclusions reached by that expert may need to be considered early on in the planning stages of the audit engagement and agreed in the terms of the engagement between the entity and the management expert.

When determining the nature, timing and extent of audit procedures in relation to the work of the management’s expert, the auditor makes reference to the requirements, application and other explanatory material contained in ASA 500^[14].