Going Concern Assessment Template (IFRS, ASC 205-40, ISA 570)

Going Concern Assessment: [Entity or group name] [Financial statements for the period ended YYYY-MM-DD]

Management's documented assessment of whether the going concern basis of accounting is appropriate and whether a material uncertainty exists: the assessment period, events and conditions, liquidity and funding, base case forecast, covenant headroom, a severe but plausible downside, a reverse stress test, mitigating actions, the conclusion, the disclosure consequences and board approval. Structure aligned with the going concern requirements of IFRS Accounting Standards (IAS 1 paragraphs 25 and 26 for periods beginning before 2027-01-01; the same requirements moved into IAS 8 "Basis of Preparation of Financial Statements" when IFRS 18 applies, from 2027-01-01), US GAAP ASC 205-40, and the auditor's evaluation under ISA 570 (Revised 2024), effective for audits of periods beginning on or after 2026-12-15, ISA (UK) 570 and PCAOB AS 2415. Obtain the standard or law for the normative text. Replace every [bracketed] value and every row marked Example. This is a document format, not accounting, audit, legal or financial advice.

Document control

Approvals

Revision history

Contents

1. Purpose, basis and assessment period
2. Business model, principal risks and events or conditions
3. Liquidity and funding position
4. Base case forecast
5. Covenant compliance and headroom
6. Severe but plausible downside
7. Reverse stress test
8. Mitigating actions within management's control
9. Events and conditions beyond the assessment period
10. Conclusion on the going concern basis and material uncertainty
11. Disclosure implications
12. Board review and approval
13. Auditor interface
14. Glossary and references

1. Purpose, basis and assessment period

This assessment records how management and the board concluded whether it is appropriate to prepare the financial statements on a going concern basis, and whether any material uncertainty about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern must be disclosed. It is the evidence the board relies on when it approves the financial statements, and the evidence the auditor reviews when forming its own view.

Identify the framework requirements that apply to this set of financial statements. Under IFRS Accounting Standards, management assesses the entity's ability to continue as a going concern and takes into account all available information about the future, covering at least, but not limited to, twelve months from the end of the reporting period (IAS 1 paragraphs 25 and 26 for periods beginning before 2027-01-01). When IFRS 18 "Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements" applies, for annual periods beginning on or after 2027-01-01, the same going concern requirements sit in IAS 8, retitled "Basis of Preparation of Financial Statements"; check the new paragraph numbers in the amended standard. Under US GAAP, ASC 205-40 requires management to evaluate, for each annual and interim period, whether conditions or events raise substantial doubt about the entity's ability to continue as a going concern within one year after the date the financial statements are issued (or available to be issued).

Choose an assessment period that satisfies every party who will rely on it. The auditor of periods beginning on or after 2026-12-15 applies ISA 570 (Revised 2024), which extends the auditor's evaluation to at least twelve months from the date the financial statements are approved. ISA (UK) 570, used for UK statutory audits, already required at least twelve months from approval before the IAASB revision. A PCAOB audit applies AS 2415, which looks at a reasonable period not exceeding one year beyond the date of the financial statements. Where management's own period is shorter, the auditor asks management to extend it. Setting the period to run at least twelve months from the expected approval date, rounded up to the next quarter end, avoids that request and the timetable pressure it creates.

Example: For Corvid Commerce Group plc the assessment period runs from 2027-01-01 to 2028-03-31, fifteen months from the balance sheet date and about thirteen months from the approval date. As a UK-listed company that files Form 20-F, the group is audited by Ashgrove & Partners LLP under ISAs (UK), where ISA (UK) 570 already requires at least twelve months from approval, and under PCAOB standards (AS 2415) for the Form 20-F. The IAASB's ISA 570 (Revised 2024) applies to subsidiaries audited under IAASB ISAs from FY2027, because the calendar year 2027 begins after 2026-12-15. The facilities mature on 2028-06-30, about fifteen and a half months after approval, so the refinancing sits just outside the period but inside the look-beyond horizon (section 9) and is treated as a significant judgement.

State the level at which the assessment is made. For a group, assess the consolidated group and then each material subsidiary that prepares its own statutory statements, because a subsidiary can face a going concern issue (for example a negative equity position or dependence on parent support) that the group does not. Where a subsidiary relies on a letter of support from the parent, record the letter, its period and the parent's ability to honour it.

2. Business model, principal risks and events or conditions

Summarise the business model in a few sentences that explain how revenue turns into cash, where cash is held, and which commitments absorb it. Then list the principal risks that matter for liquidity and solvency. Take them from the risk register reviewed by the board so the going concern assessment and the annual report tell the same story.

Example: Corvid Commerce Group sells a subscription software platform to small retailers (about 60% of revenue in the FY2027 budget, billed monthly and annually in advance), a commerce business selling consumables and hardware (about 34%, seasonal with a fourth-quarter peak) and implementation services (about 6%). Subscription receipts are recurring and predictable; commerce receipts drive working capital swings; services follow project milestones. Cash is pooled in EUR at group level, with operating balances in GBP, USD and VND.

Work through the categories of events and conditions systematically: financial (losses, negative operating cash flow, maturing debt without refinancing, covenant pressure, withdrawal of supplier credit), operating (loss of key customers, suppliers or management, labour shortages, cyber incidents that stop trading), and external (legal proceedings, regulatory changes, sanctions, catastrophic events). Record each one even when the answer is "not present", because the list demonstrates completeness.

3. Liquidity and funding position

Present the liquidity position at the balance sheet date and at the latest practicable date before approval. Count only cash the group can use for its own obligations, and only facilities the lender is committed to provide. Uncommitted lines can be withdrawn at the moment they are most needed, so show them separately and exclude them from headroom.

Use one liquidity measure and label it every time: liquidity headroom as defined in the treasury policy, unrestricted cash excluding trapped cash plus undrawn committed facilities with more than 12 months to maturity. A facility stops counting on the day its remaining life falls to 12 months, even though it can still be drawn, so the measure shows when refinancing becomes urgent. Where the group could still draw a facility that no longer counts, say so separately: that is contractual liquidity, which answers whether the group can pay its debts and is what the minimum liquidity covenant measures.

Check: 28,000 - 1,000 + 20,000 = 47,000, matching Treasury Policy (finance/treasury-policy) section 3.3, Annual Budget (finance/annual-budget) section 9 and the minimum liquidity test in Covenant Compliance Certificate (finance/covenant-compliance-certificate). The EUR 1,000k held in a Vietnam customer deposit account cannot be swept to the group, so it is excluded from headroom and from covenant net debt in every period of this assessment.

The EUR 50,000k club facilities were originated on 2025-06-30 with a three-year tenor, and Fernhollow Bank holds 60% of the commitments. Because both facilities mature on 2028-06-30, they are excluded from liquidity headroom from 2027-06-30 unless refinanced: on that date exactly twelve months remain, and from then on headroom is cash less trapped cash. The revolving facility can still be drawn until 2028-06-30, so contractual liquidity does not fall at that date.

Compare liquidity with the minimum set in the treasury policy. A policy minimum is not a lender covenant, so a shortfall against it is not a default, but it is an early warning that the board has already agreed to act on. Record the treasury policy minimum, its source and how close each scenario comes to it.

4. Base case forecast

The base case is management's best estimate, not an optimistic case. Explain the key assumptions and show that they agree with the budget, the rolling forecast and the impairment test, because inconsistent assumptions across these documents are a frequent audit finding. Where the forecast has been updated since board approval of the budget, explain the change.

The quarterly base case below shows cash, liquidity headroom with and without refinancing, and the covenant inputs. Covenant net debt is the term loan plus lease liabilities less cash, excluding the EUR 1,000k of trapped cash. Covenant EBITDA follows the facility definition: FY2026 covenant EBITDA is EUR 17,800k (management EBITDA 16,800 plus EUR 1,000k of permitted add-backs, all arising after Q1 2026), giving covenant net debt of 30,000 + 8,000 - (28,000 - 1,000) = 11,000 and leverage of 11,000 / 17,800 = 0.62x at 2026-12-31. The forecast assumes no add-backs from 2027, a conservative proxy. Reconcile to the certificate at each test date and replace the definition with your own agreement's.

Conventions: EUR thousand; quarter ends 03-31, 06-30, 09-30, 12-31; LTM means the last twelve months. FY2026 quarterly covenant EBITDA was 3,300, 4,400, 4,600 and 5,500 (total 17,800; Q1 2026 management EBITDA of 3,300 agrees to Monthly Management Report, finance/monthly-management-report), and finance charges were 330, 320, 325 and 325 (total 1,300). FY2027 quarterly EBITDA is the budget phasing (4,100, 5,000, 5,300 and 7,200: Annual Budget section 11). Opening cash 28,000. FY2027 net cash flow totals (1,600), matching the budget cash flow (28,000 to 26,400). Lease liabilities fall from 8,000 by 400 a quarter (7,600 at Q1 2027 to 6,000 at Q1 2028). Headroom refinanced is cash - 1,000 + 20,000; headroom not refinanced drops the facility from 2027-06-30 and is cash - 1,000. Contractual liquidity equals the refinanced column throughout the period, because the existing revolving facility stays drawable until 2028-06-30. Q1 2027 cash of EUR 30,550k is the closing balance of the 13-week forecast CF13-2027-01 (week ending 2027-04-02, used as the quarter-end proxy), whose lowest weekly balance is EUR 28,250k in week 4.

Check for Q2 2027: LTM covenant EBITDA = 4,600 + 5,500 + 4,100 + 5,000 = 19,200; covenant net debt = 30,000 + 7,200 - (26,050 - 1,000) = 12,150; leverage = 12,150 / 19,200 = 0.63x; LTM finance charges = 325 + 325 + 300 + 300 = 1,250; interest cover = 19,200 / 1,250 = 15.36x. Check for Q4 2027: headroom 26,400 - 1,000 + 20,000 = 45,400 if refinanced, 26,400 - 1,000 = 25,400 if not; covenant net debt 30,000 + 6,400 - 25,400 = 11,000 and 11,000 / 21,600 = 0.51x.

Example finding: Without refinancing, base-case headroom falls below the EUR 35,000k minimum from 2027-06-30 (25,050, a shortfall of 9,950) and stays below it to the end of the assessment period (25,400 at 2027-12-31), even though trading is on budget. The base case therefore assumes the facilities are refinanced by 2027-06-30, as in Annual Budget assumption ASM-013 and Liquidity and Funding Plan (finance/liquidity-funding-plan). Contractual liquidity never falls below EUR 44,050k, so the group can meet its obligations throughout the period whether or not the refinancing is signed; the refinancing matters for the policy limit and for the 2028-06-30 maturity (section 9).

Describe the intra-quarter low point. Quarter-end figures can hide a trough between test dates, for example when payroll, the dividend and a tax instalment fall in the same week. Use the weekly forecast for the first thirteen weeks and monthly figures thereafter to confirm the minimum balance, and state it.

5. Covenant compliance and headroom

List each financial covenant with its clause reference, definition, threshold, test frequency and the date of the next compliance certificate. Then show headroom. Headroom is most useful when expressed as the cushion in the driver that can fall, normally EBITDA, because the board can compare it directly with the size of the downside.

The covenant thresholds above are illustrative; take yours from the facility agreement and keep them identical to Covenant Compliance Certificate (finance/covenant-compliance-certificate). The assessment tests the existing agreement, because the refinancing is not signed at the approval date; a new agreement may define the covenants differently.

Headroom formulas, for a maximum leverage covenant $L_{max}$ and a minimum interest cover covenant $C_{min}$:

Example: At Q2 2027 in the base case, leverage headroom is 1 - 0.63 / 3.00 = 79% (precisely 1 - 12,150 / 3.00 / 19,200 = 78.9%), meaning LTM EBITDA could fall by about 79% before COV-001 is breached at the forecast net debt. Interest cover headroom is 1 - (4.00 x 1,250) / 19,200 = 74.0%. At Q2 2027 interest cover therefore has the smaller EBITDA headroom (74.0% against 78.9%), but leverage is breached first in the reverse stress test because net debt rises as cash is consumed while finance charges are held constant (section 7).

Debt service cover behaves differently, because capital expenditure, tax and working capital are deducted in full and the test is annual. On the agreement's definition, Cashflow is EBITDA less working capital increase, tax paid, capital expenditure and cash exceptional items; Debt Service is net finance charges plus scheduled debt repayments and lease principal. The dividend is not deducted. From the cash flow statement, Cashflow equals net cash flow plus finance charges, lease principal and the dividend.

Example (FY2027 base case, test date 2027-12-31): Cashflow = 21,600 - 2,100 - 3,300 - 12,000 = 4,200 (equivalently (1,600) + 1,200 + 1,600 + 3,000); Debt Service = 1,200 + 0 + 1,600 = 2,800; DSCR = 4,200 / 2,800 = 1.50x against a minimum of 1.20x. Cashflow can fall by only EUR 840k (4,200 - 1.20 x 2,800 = 840), about 4.8% of the base EBITDA for Q2 to Q4 2027 (17,500), before COV-003 is breached. Debt service cover is therefore the tightest covenant in the base case, and the capital expenditure programme is the main lever that protects it. Capex of 12,000 is inside the COV-005 limit of 14,000. No scheduled principal falls due in FY2027; the bullet on 2028-06-30 would fall in the FY2028 test, which is why the refinancing must be completed before then. COV-004 is met with wide headroom in every quarter: the lowest base-case value is 25,050 - 1,000 + 20,000 = 44,050 at Q3 2027, because the existing revolving facility remains available to draw until 2028-06-30.

Check also the non-financial undertakings that can trigger a default: delivery of audited statements within the deadline, the auditor's report without a going concern qualification where the agreement requires it, cross-default thresholds on other debt, material adverse change clauses, and change of control. A going concern material uncertainty in the auditor's report is itself an event of default under some facility agreements; read the agreement before the board decides the disclosure, so that both are considered together.

6. Severe but plausible downside

Design the downside from the principal risks in section 2, calibrated to evidence: the worst historical decline, peer experience, or the shock used in the impairment test. Describe what happens, why it is plausible and how the numbers were derived. Run the downside first without mitigating actions, so the board sees the gross exposure, then apply only actions that are within management's control (section 8).

Example scenario DS-01: From Q2 2027 a consumer downturn and the loss of the largest commerce customer reduce commerce volume sharply, subscription churn rises, and services projects are deferred. Group EBITDA falls 35% below the base case in every quarter from Q2 2027 to Q1 2028, and a two-month delay in collections from distressed customers adds a working capital outflow of EUR 1,500k in Q2 2027. The 35% reduction is roughly twice the largest peak-to-trough EBITDA decline in the group's own history, which management judges severe but plausible for a business with a subscription base. Cash flow falls by the full EBITDA shortfall, with no tax relief assumed, which is conservative.

Check for Q2 2027: EBITDA 5,000 x 65% = 3,250; net cash flow = base (4,500) - 1,750 shortfall - 1,500 working capital = (7,750); closing cash 30,550 - 7,750 = 22,800; headroom refinanced 22,800 - 1,000 + 20,000 = 41,800. Total EBITDA shortfall over the period is 1,750 + 1,855 + 2,520 + 1,610 = EUR 7,735k.

Debt service cover in DS-01 for FY2027: net cash flow 2,550 - 7,750 - 2,855 - 1,170 = (9,225); Cashflow = (9,225) + 1,200 + 1,600 + 3,000 = (3,425); DSCR negative against a minimum of 1.20x.

Example result: Before mitigating actions, leverage and interest cover are met at every test date (leverage headroom at least 52%, 1 - 1.45 / 3.00), and contractual liquidity stays at or above EUR 35,165k. Three thresholds fail or come close. First, COV-003 debt service cover is breached at the 2027-12-31 test (Cashflow negative), which is an event of default unless cured or waived. Second, without refinancing, headroom is below the EUR 35,000k minimum from 2027-06-30 (lowest 15,165 at 2028-03-31). Third, even with the refinancing signed, headroom falls to 35,165 at 2028-03-31, only EUR 165k above the minimum. The going concern question in this downside is therefore whether management can protect debt service cover with actions within its control (section 8) and whether the refinancing will be signed, not whether cash runs out.

Consider a second, operational scenario where a principal risk is not primarily a demand shock, for example a two-week outage of the subscription platform after a cyber incident, with service credits and recovery costs. Quantify it the same way, or explain in one paragraph why it is smaller than DS-01 and therefore covered by it.

7. Reverse stress test

The reverse stress test answers a different question from the downside: not "what happens if" but "what would have to happen for the business to fail". Define failure points that are meaningful for the entity: the first covenant breach, the point at which committed liquidity is exhausted, and the treasury minimum. Solve for the change in the main driver that reaches each point, holding the other assumptions of DS-01 constant.

Example derivation: With EBITDA d below base from Q2 2027, Q1 2028 cash is 23,900 - 22,100d (EUR 221k per point of decline, 1% of the EUR 22,100k base EBITDA from Q2 2027 to Q1 2028), covenant net debt is 30,000 + 6,000 - (cash - 1,000) = 13,100 + 22,100d and LTM covenant EBITDA is 22,100(1 - d). At d = 60%, leverage is 26,360 / 8,840 = 2.98x; at 65% it is 27,465 / 7,735 = 3.55x. Solving 13,100 + 22,100d = 3.00 x 22,100 x (1 - d) gives d = 53,200 / 88,400 = 60.2%. Headroom with the refinancing (cash - 1,000 + 20,000) reaches 35,000 when cash falls to 16,000, at d = (23,900 - 16,000) / 22,100 = 35.7%. For debt service cover after actions, Cashflow is 4,200 - 1,500 + 2,800 + 2,600 + 1,500 - 17,500d, which equals 1.20 x 2,800 = 3,360 at d = 6,240 / 17,500 = 35.7%. Interest cover at a 75% decline is 22,100 x 0.25 / 1,200 = 4.60x. The 60.2% leverage breaking point is about 3.4 times the worst historical decline of 17.5%.

Explain what would happen at each failure point and how quickly management would see it coming. A covenant breach is not automatically insolvency: lenders commonly agree waivers or resets for a fee when the business remains cash generative. Record management's view of the likelihood of reaching each point and the early warning indicators, linked to the key risk indicators the board already monitors.

8. Mitigating actions within management's control

Mitigating actions must be realistic, quantified and feasible in the time available. For each action, give the trigger, the latest date it can be taken to have effect within the assessment period, its cash effect, and its side effects on the business. Classify actions that need a third party (lender consent, new equity, disposal) separately: they may be relevant to the conclusion but carry their own uncertainty, and under US GAAP plans are considered only when it is probable they will be implemented and probable they will mitigate the conditions.

Show the downside after mitigating actions MIT-001, MIT-002, MIT-003 and MIT-006. MIT-004 is held in reserve and not included, so headroom is not inflated by borrowing; MIT-005 and MIT-007 need third parties and are not counted.

Check for Q2 2027: EBITDA 3,250 + 500 hiring freeze = 3,750; net cash flow (7,750) + 3,000 dividend + 1,400 first half of CAP-002 + 500 = (2,850). Q3 2027: (2,855) + 1,400 + 500 + 1,300 = 345. Q4 2027: (1,170) + 500 + 1,300 = 630. Q1 2028: (2,610) + 500 = (2,110).

Debt service cover after actions for FY2027: net cash flow 2,550 - 2,850 + 345 + 630 = 675; Cashflow = 675 + 1,200 + 1,600 + 0 dividend = 3,475; DSCR = 3,475 / 2,800 = 1.24x, just above the 1.20x minimum (headroom EUR 115k of Cashflow). At 2028-03-31 headroom is EUR 45,565k with the refinancing (EUR 10,565k above the minimum) and EUR 25,565k without it, so the actions repair the covenant and restore the liquidity margin but cannot replace the refinancing.

Assess feasibility honestly. Explain whether the actions have been taken before in practice, whether they depend on each other, and whether management would really take them given the effect on the strategy. Auditors challenge actions that management has never been willing to take, and actions whose timing is later than the point at which they would be needed.

9. Events and conditions beyond the assessment period

Management must stay alert to events beyond the assessment period that are known at the approval date. The most common is a refinancing: if all committed debt matures shortly after the period ends, the ability to refinance is part of the going concern judgement even though the maturity date is outside the period. Explain the plan, its timetable, the evidence of lender appetite and the fallback.

Example: The term loan and the revolving facility mature on 2028-06-30, three months after the assessment period ends. The treasury policy requires signing at least twelve months before maturity, so the target signing date is 2027-06-30 (Liquidity and Funding Plan, milestones MS-001 to MS-007). At the approval date of 2027-03-10 the board has approved the mandate (DEC-001, 2027-01-28) and requested proposals, and the relationship banks, led by Fernhollow Bank with 60% of the commitments, have confirmed appetite in writing without commitment; term sheets are due by 2027-03-31. The fallback, decided by 2027-05-31, is a twelve-month extension of the existing facilities. If neither is signed, the group would hold about EUR 25,400k of cash at 2028-03-31 in the base case (EUR 16,165k in DS-01), of which EUR 1,000k is trapped, against a EUR 30,000k bullet on 2028-06-30, so it could not repay in full from its own resources: the refinancing is necessary for the group to continue beyond the period, which is why it is treated as a significant judgement. Leverage of at most 1.45x even in DS-01 is well inside the levels at which mid-market lenders normally refinance, which supports management's judgement that the refinancing is highly likely.

The timing also has an accounting consequence. At 2027-06-30 the facilities have twelve months or less to run; unless refinanced, they are current liabilities in the half-year statements, and the half-year going concern assessment must then address the maturity inside its own period.

Record other known future events: large contract renewals, regulatory changes with effect dates, earn-out payments, pension funding schedules, tax disputes with expected resolution dates, and IFRS 18 adoption (presentation only, with no cash effect, but relevant to covenant definitions that reference the income statement subtotal names).

10. Conclusion on the going concern basis and material uncertainty

State the two conclusions separately, because they answer different questions. The going concern basis is inappropriate only when management intends to liquidate or cease trading, or has no realistic alternative but to do so. A material uncertainty exists when events or conditions cast significant doubt on the entity's ability to continue, and the uncertainty is so significant that disclosure of its nature and implications is needed for the statements to be understood. Under US GAAP the analogous test is whether substantial doubt exists and, if it does, whether management's plans alleviate it.

Write a short narrative conclusion of three to five sentences that the board can adopt in its minutes and that matches the wording of the basis of preparation note.

Example: Having considered the base case, a severe but plausible downside before and after mitigating actions within management's control, a reverse stress test and the refinancing of the group's facilities due on 2028-06-30, the directors have a reasonable expectation that the group has adequate resources to continue in operational existence for the period to 2028-03-31. They have therefore adopted the going concern basis in preparing the FY2026 consolidated financial statements. In reaching this view the directors made a significant judgement that the facilities will be refinanced or extended before 2027-06-30, supported by the lenders' written appetite, the group's low leverage and the fallback extension, and that the actions available to protect the debt service cover covenant in a severe downside would be taken. They have not identified a material uncertainty related to events or conditions that may cast significant doubt on the group's ability to continue as a going concern.

Record what would change the answer. If, at the approval date of the next statements (the half-year report for the six months to 2027-06-30), neither the new facilities nor the extension are signed, the facilities will mature within that assessment period with no committed replacement; unless the board then has firm evidence that signing is imminent, a material uncertainty disclosure is likely to be required, and the lenders' reaction to that disclosure must be checked against the facility agreement (section 5). Equally, if trading falls further than DS-01 so that debt service cover cannot be protected by actions within control, the conclusion depends on a waiver (MIT-007), which is outside management's control and would point towards a material uncertainty.

When the conclusion is different, use the decision flow below and document which branch applies.

11. Disclosure implications

Draft every disclosure affected by the conclusion and attach it to this assessment. Check consistency between the financial statements, the management report or strategic report, any viability or longer-term prospects statement, and the auditor's report. Use Financial Statement Disclosure Checklist (finance/financial-statement-disclosure-checklist) to confirm completeness.

Remember that a deterioration in operating results and financial position after the reporting period can make the going concern basis inappropriate for statements not yet approved (IAS 10). Update this assessment to the approval date and record the update in the revision history.

12. Board review and approval

The directors are responsible for the conclusion, not management alone. Present this assessment to the audit committee with the draft disclosures, and record the challenge and how it was resolved. The audit committee then recommends the conclusion to the board, which approves it with the financial statements.

Minute reference: [Board minute number, date]. Attach the approved text of the basis of preparation note.

13. Auditor interface

Share the assessment with the auditor early, ideally at the planning meeting with a draft and again at fieldwork with the final version. Expect the refinancing judgement and the debt service cover headroom to be discussed as a key audit matter or a close call in the auditor's report. Under ISA 570 (Revised 2024) the auditor performs more work on management's assessment, including the method, the assumptions, management's plans and the data used, and reports more explicitly on going concern in the auditor's report. Under PCAOB standards the auditor's evaluation follows AS 2415, and under AICPA standards AU-C 570. Agree in advance which evidence will be provided for each significant assumption.

Track these requests in PBC Request List (finance/pbc-request-list). The written representation on going concern given at the end of the audit must match the conclusion in section 10 and must be dated as near as practicable to the auditor's report.

14. Glossary and references

References:

• IAS 1 "Presentation of Financial Statements", paragraphs 25 and 26 (going concern), paragraph 122 (judgements), for periods beginning before 2027-01-01.
• IFRS 18 "Presentation and Disclosure in Financial Statements", effective for annual periods beginning on or after 2027-01-01, and IAS 8 "Basis of Preparation of Financial Statements" as amended.
• IAS 10 "Events after the Reporting Period"; IFRS 7 "Financial Instruments: Disclosures" (liquidity risk).
• FASB ASC 205-40 "Presentation of Financial Statements: Going Concern".
• ISA 570 (Revised 2024) "Going Concern", effective for audits of financial statements for periods beginning on or after 2026-12-15; ISA (UK) 570 "Going Concern" (FRC); ISA 580 "Written Representations".
• UK Corporate Governance Code (FRC), Provisions 30 and 31; Form 20-F Item 5.B (liquidity and capital resources).
• PCAOB AS 2415 (going concern); AICPA AU-C 570.
• Internal: FY2027 budget, 13-week cash flow forecast, facility agreements, treasury policy, risk register, board and audit committee minutes.

Standard and licence note

Structure aligned with the going concern requirements of IFRS Accounting Standards (IAS 1 paragraphs 25 and 26, and IAS 8 as amended by IFRS 18 from 2027-01-01), FASB ASC 205-40 ISA 570 (Revised 2024), ISA (UK) 570 and PCAOB AS 2415, cited by name and number only. The text, scenarios, tables and worked example are original and do not reproduce or paraphrase the standards. IFRS, IAS, ASC, ISA, PCAOB and AICPA materials are copyrighted by their publishers; obtain the official text from the standard setter and check the current version, effective dates and any local endorsement (for example EU endorsement of IFRS 18) before use. Corvid Commerce Group plc, Ashgrove & Partners LLP and Fernhollow Bank are fictional. Template licence: MIT.