6 In my opinion Hope was not justified in deciding that the costs were for tooling modifications. There was not sufficient evidence to come to this conclusion, just some complicated explanations from USSC and inaccurate purchase orders and invoices. The evidence was not relevant to the audit objective. The specific products with modifications should have been traced back to their purchase orders. Instead the auditors just took the explanation of these orders from management. Finally the reliability of the evidence was not high, USSC had a lot to lose if it was concluded that they were indeed general production and the General Manger for Lacey had changed his position numerous times. The only reliable evidence was that of the independent law firm that concluded the purchase orders and invoices were not for tooling modifications.

5 The evidence that hope collected that supports USSC's claim that the charges in question were in fact for tooling modifications was the General Manager of Lacey Corporation (A division of Barden Corporation) goes back on his previous statement and confirms that the purchase orders and invoices were in fact for tooling modifications. USSC explained their position and said that they had instructed Lacey to make certain tooling changes that would result in improved efficiency in production of USSC products. When the audit team asked to take a tour of the Lacey plant to examine the actual production process the Lacey General Manger informed the audit team that personnel often mistakenly charge tooling jobs to production.
There was more evidence that supported the position that the costs in question were just generic production expenses. Initially the audit team did not notice that the assets were being overstated and there was an issue with the classification. It was the company who does work for USSC that admitted that there were issues