<![CDATA[Financial statements can only be relied upon when account balances are supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. Tests of details of balances are one of the main ways auditors obtain that evidence. This article analyzes how these tests are used to obtain audit evidence and to assess the fairness of account balances, focusing on the links between procedures, evidence, assertions, and the identification of misstatements. The study uses a literature review with a descriptive qualitative approach, drawing on auditing standards and seven prior studies published between 2022 and 2026. The analysis maps nine groups of procedures: external confirmation, vouching, tracing, inspection and physical observation, recalculation, reperformance, cut-off testing, search for unrecorded liabilities, and evaluation of accounting estimates. Each procedure is strong for particular assertions and has its own limitations. For example, vouching and tracing address opposite misstatement risks, and an external confirmation does not by itself answer questions of valuation. Therefore, the fairness of a balance is concluded from a combination of procedures selected according to the risk of material misstatement and the assertions tested, and from the evaluation of identified misstatements against materiality, not from a single procedure. The prior studies reviewed tend to evaluate the conformity of procedures with theory or standards for particular entities and accounts, so the links among procedures, evidence, and assertions are rarely discussed explicitly. This article addresses that point conceptually and offers a mapping that can be tested in future research on audit practice.]]>
