Ms. Jill Karnick, the BDO Seidman semi-senior who had been assigned the primary responsibility for auditing HMI's inventory account, took the witness stand. Karnick revealed in fact, she had attempted during the audit to perform an inventory roll forward, which is essentially equivalent to an inventory roll back. But she didn't continue to carry out the test for it was "normal practice" to discard the results of inconclusive audit test.
Working paper must contain an accurate statements and data. Since inconclusive audit test is incomplete, it cannot be part of a working paper. Due to lack of informations , including it to the working paper would mislead other auditors in using those figures. Thus, working papers should only contain results that are clear for the users to understand and interpret.
But in this case, as for the amount of inventory that is under a very big impression of impossibility of existence, the auditor herself should have at least kept a documentation that an attempt of a roll forward has been made . A disclosure of such thing might be useful especially if she, herself is doubtful of the existence of the in-transit inventory.

During the stand of Mr. Moore who is the plaintiff expert witness he emphasized that instead of completing an inventory rollback, the expert witness charged BDO Seidman with applying an "audit by conversation " approach to the in-transit inentory. That is, the expert charged auditors relied heavily on client representations to support the existence of that inventory. Young then told the expert witness that in the generally accepted auditing standards, that there's no such thing about inventory roll back as the main audit test for inventory to be used. Inventory rollback is typically performed to verify purchases and cost of sale records and thus establish accurate figures for starting and ending inventory. An auditor