Which form of evidence is regarded as more reliable — written or oral?

Written documents are considered more reliable than oral representations due to several factors. First, written evidence provides a tangible record that can be referred to at any time, allowing for verification and consistency over time. This permanence is crucial in the audit process, as it facilitates a clearer understanding of the terms, agreements, and transactions involved.

Written documents are also less susceptible to misinterpretation or memory lapses that can occur with oral representations. When communication is in writing, it reduces the opportunity for ambiguity or miscommunication, as the specifics are clearly laid out. This clarity enhances the credibility of the evidence, making it more reliable for auditors who must establish facts and assertions during their examination.

While other forms of communication, such as emails and text messages, also provide written evidence, they might not have the same level of formality or context as traditional written documents, like contracts or official statements. On the other hand, oral representations can vary significantly based on perception and memory, which can lead to discrepancies and challenges in confirming the accuracy of the information provided. Thus, the nature of written documents makes them the preferred form of evidence in the context of reliability.