Your firm audits a listed Dutch company. In March, the CFO calls. The board wants a reviewed set of half-year financials for the six months ending 30 June, filed with the AFM by the end of August. You’ve done the annual audit for four years running, but nobody on the team has documented an interim review before. The temptation is to treat it like a mini-audit. It isn’t one. The other temptation is to reduce it to ticking and bashing on the half-year numbers against the prior interim. That isn’t one either.
ISRE 2410 governs the review of interim financial information performed by the entity’s independent auditor, requiring limited assurance through inquiry and analytical procedures that the interim financials are prepared in accordance with the applicable framework, expressed as a negative-form conclusion under ISRE 2410.43. The standard is built on the assumption that you already know this client. In our experience, that assumption is what makes the engagement either fast or painful. If your annual file was thin on the entity, the interim file inherits the gap.
Key takeaways
- How ISRE 2410 differs from ISRE 2400, and why the distinction hinges on whether you are the entity’s auditor (ISRE 2410.1-3a)
- How to plan and perform an interim review using your existing audit knowledge of the entity, including the specific procedures required by ISRE 2410.12-29
- How to handle going concern in an interim review, where IAS 34 and local frameworks create distinct requirements
- What triggers a modified conclusion and how the reporting requirements in ISRE 2410.43-60 work in practice
When ISRE 2410 applies (and when it does not)
ISRE 2410 applies in two situations. The first and most common: you are the entity’s independent auditor, and you’re engaged to review interim financial information (typically half-year or quarterly financials prepared under IAS 34 or a local equivalent). The second, added by a 2007 amendment: you are the entity’s independent auditor, and you’re engaged to review historical financial information other than interim financials.
If you are not the entity’s auditor, ISRE 2400 (Revised) applies instead. The distinction is not administrative. ISRE 2410 assumes you carry forward audit-based knowledge of the entity from your annual engagement: its internal controls, its accounting policies, its industry, and its risk profile. ISRE 2400 assumes you have none of that knowledge and must build it from scratch. The procedures differ accordingly.
In the Netherlands, the most frequent ISRE 2410 engagement is the review of half-year financials for entities listed on Euronext Amsterdam. IAS 34 (Interim Financial Reporting) governs the preparation of those half-year reports. But the standard also applies to voluntary interim reviews and to reviews of quarterly information for private entities with bank covenant requirements. Any engagement where you (as the entity’s auditor) review historical financial information falls under ISRE 2410.
What your audit knowledge gives you on an interim review
ISRE 2410.12-14 assumes that the auditor who has audited the entity’s financial statements for one or more annual periods already holds a sufficient understanding of the entity and its environment, including its internal control, as it relates to the preparation of annual financial information. You don’t rebuild this understanding from zero for the interim review. You update it.
Paragraph 15 requires you to determine whether the understanding needs updating based on changes since the last annual audit. Has the entity changed its accounting system? Did it enter a new line of business? Were there significant changes in management, ownership, financing arrangements, or internal control that affect interim financial reporting?
This is where the efficiency gain of ISRE 2410 over ISRE 2400 sits. You’re not writing a new understanding memo from scratch. You’re documenting what has changed since the last audit and whether those changes require you to modify the nature or extent of your review procedures. A single memo covering the update is usually sufficient.
Paragraph 17 adds a specific requirement: the auditor must obtain a sufficient understanding of internal control as it relates to the preparation of interim financial information, because that internal control may differ from internal control over annual financial information. Interim close processes are often faster and less formal than year-end processes. Estimation methodologies may be simplified. Cut-off procedures may rely on different controls. If you last saw the entity’s controls at year-end, ask what the interim close process looks like.
Procedures: what ISRE 2410 requires beyond inquiry and analytics
Inquiry
ISRE 2410.19-22 prescribes the inquiries more specifically than ISRE 2400 does. The standard requires you to inquire of management and others (as appropriate) about the following: whether the interim financial information has been prepared in accordance with the applicable framework, significant changes in internal control, changes in business activities or accounting policies, whether management has identified and addressed going concern considerations, significant transactions with related parties, and any known or suspected fraud.
Paragraph 22 adds: read the minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance, audit committees, and any other relevant committees. If minutes aren’t available, inquire about the matters that were discussed. This is a specific procedural requirement, not a suggestion. Files missing evidence that the practitioner considered board minutes will draw a review comment.
Analytical procedures
ISRE 2410.23-25 requires analytical procedures designed to identify relationships and individual items that appear unusual and may indicate a material misstatement. At a minimum, compare the interim financial information with the prior period interim information and with the most recent annual financial information. Appendix 2 to the standard lists illustrative analytical procedures: comparison of current interim balances with prior period balances, comparison with budgets or forecasts, analysis of relationships between items that would be expected to conform to a predictable pattern, and comparison of financial data with relevant non-financial information.
Unlike a review under ISRE 2400, where you build your analytical expectations from an understanding developed for the review itself, your ISRE 2410 analytics can draw directly on the financial and non-financial data you accumulated during the annual audit. If you know the entity’s seasonal revenue pattern from four years of audit work, you can set a tighter expectation for interim revenue than a practitioner encountering the entity for the first time.
ciferi’s ISA 520 Analytical Review Calculator structures the expectation-versus-actual comparison for review engagements in the same way it does for audits. The key difference is in threshold setting: your materiality for the interim review (which ISRE 2410 does not explicitly define, but which mirrors the logic in ISA 320 ) will typically be lower than annual materiality because the base figures are smaller.
Other review procedures
ISRE 2410.26-29 adds procedures that go beyond inquiry and analytics. The auditor must read the interim financial information and consider whether anything suggests it is not prepared in accordance with the applicable framework (paragraph 26). Other information accompanying the interim financials must also be read for material inconsistencies (paragraph 27).
Two further requirements round out the work. The auditor considers the effect of any misstatements identified, including prior-period unadjusted items (paragraph 28), and obtains evidence that the interim financial information reconciles with the underlying accounting records (paragraph 29).
If any of these procedures (or your inquiries and analytics) surface matters that cause you to believe the interim information may be materially misstated, you perform such additional procedures as you consider necessary to form your conclusion (ISRE 2410.29, read with the general requirements). This is the same escalation mechanism as ISRE 2400.50, applied in a context where you have more background knowledge to draw on.
Going concern in an interim review
Going concern is where interim reviews get complicated. This is the section that generates the most review notes on the files we’ve seen, because international ISRE 2410 doesn’t prescribe specific procedures and teams default to a one-line memo. IAS 34 .15B(d) explicitly requires the interim FS to disclose events and transactions that are significant to understanding the entity’s changes in financial position and performance since the last annual reporting period. Going concern uncertainties are precisely such events.
ISRE 2410, in its international form, does not have an explicit going concern section. By contrast, the FRC’s UK version, ISRE (UK) 2410 (revised May 2021), added detailed going concern requirements including specific procedures on management’s going concern assessment and distinct reporting requirements for material uncertainties. Under the international standard, the practitioner applies the general inquiry and analytical procedure requirements to going concern matters.
In practice, this means: inquire of management whether any events or conditions since the last annual financial statements raise doubt about the entity’s ability to continue as a going concern. If the annual audit identified going concern considerations, update your assessment. Review the entity’s latest forecast, its cash position, its covenant compliance, and any financing arrangements due for renewal within twelve months of the interim period end. When a material uncertainty exists, check whether the interim financial information includes the disclosures required by the applicable framework.
Identifying a material uncertainty related to going concern that is not adequately disclosed requires you to modify your conclusion. Where the framework requires disclosure and management refuses to make it, you issue an adverse conclusion under ISRE 2410.46-47 (for a departure from the applicable framework).
The review report under ISRE 2410
ISRE 2410.43-60 governs the review report. The structure follows a prescribed format, with illustrative reports in Appendix 4.
An unmodified conclusion uses negative-form wording: nothing has come to the auditor’s attention that causes the auditor to believe the interim financial information is not prepared, in all material respects, in accordance with the applicable framework. The report must identify the interim financial information reviewed, including the title of each statement and the date and period covered. It must state management’s responsibility for preparing the interim information and the auditor’s responsibility to express a conclusion based on the review.
ISRE 2410.45-47 covers departures from the applicable financial reporting framework. If the departure is material but not pervasive, the auditor issues a qualified conclusion, describing the nature of the departure and (where practicable) quantifying the financial effects. If the departure is both material and pervasive, the conclusion is adverse.
Scope limitations follow a similar logic. A material but not pervasive limitation leads to a qualified conclusion (ISRE 2410.48-52). A pervasive limitation prevents the auditor from completing the review. In the rare case where the limitation is imposed by management, ISRE 2410.53-54 requires the auditor to consider whether it is appropriate to continue with the engagement at all.
One practical point that sometimes trips up teams: the date of the review report. ISRE 2410.44-1 (added in the UK version) and general principles require the report to be dated no earlier than the date on which the auditor has obtained sufficient evidence to support the conclusion. For listed entities with tight filing deadlines, this means the review cannot be signed before the final analytical procedures and management representations are complete. Plan the timeline backward from the filing date.
Worked example: Brinkman Electronics N.V.
Client: Brinkman Electronics N.V., a Dutch company listed on Euronext Amsterdam, manufacturing industrial sensors and control systems. Revenue (2024 full year): €92M. Interim period: six months ended 30 June 2025. Framework: IAS 34 . The firm has been Brinkman’s auditor for the last four annual periods.
1. Engagement terms
The audit engagement letter covers the interim review. Paragraph 11 of ISRE 2410 notes that the terms of the interim review can be combined with the terms of the annual audit engagement. The firm confirms the scope: review of the condensed consolidated interim financial statements for the six months ended 30 June 2025, under ISRE 2410.
Documentation note: Engagement letter on file covers both audit and interim review. No separate acceptance required per ISRE 2410.10-11.
2. Update understanding
The team reviews what has changed since the 2024 annual audit. Brinkman acquired a small German competitor (Reinhardt Sensorik GmbH) in February 2025 for €6.8M. This is the only significant change to business activities. Management has applied IFRS 3 to the acquisition and included two months of Reinhardt’s results in the consolidated interim information. No changes in internal controls over financial reporting were identified, but the interim close now includes a consolidation of Reinhardt using a different ERP system (SAP versus Brinkman’s Oracle). The team notes the manual consolidation adjustment process as an area for focused inquiry.
Documentation note: Update memo filed. Acquisition of Reinhardt Sensorik GmbH flagged. Manual consolidation adjustment process noted. No changes in accounting policies.
3. Inquiry
The team conducts structured inquiry with Brinkman’s Group Controller. Key areas: consolidation of Reinhardt (manual adjustments confirmed; intercompany eliminations performed at group level; purchase price allocation completed by an independent valuer and reviewed by the CFO), related party transactions (two intercompany transactions between Brinkman and Reinhardt eliminated on consolidation; no other new related party transactions), subsequent events (none identified), fraud (none reported), going concern (management confirms no events or conditions raising doubt; order backlog for H2 2025 is €48M, consistent with prior years; bank facilities renewed in March 2025 for 36 months; debt service coverage ratio at 2.1x against a 1.5x covenant).
The team also reviews the minutes of the Q1 and Q2 2025 supervisory board meetings. No significant matters identified beyond the acquisition.
Documentation note: Inquiry memo filed. All responses documented by topic and respondent. Board minutes read; no additional matters arising.
4. Analytical procedures
Revenue for H1 2025: €49.2M (H1 2024: €44.1M; increase of 11.6%). Of this, €3.1M relates to two months of Reinhardt revenue. Excluding Reinhardt, organic growth is 4.5%, consistent with the 4-6% growth rate observed in the prior four audit periods. Gross margin: 41.2% (FY 2024: 42.8%). The slight decline is consistent with Reinhardt’s lower-margin product mix and is corroborated by Reinhardt’s standalone gross margin of 34% based on the acquisition due diligence. Operating expenses increased 9% year-on-year; €1.4M relates to acquisition-related costs (advisory fees, integration costs), confirmed to the consolidation workpaper.
Trade receivables: €16.8M (FY 2024: €14.2M). Days sales outstanding: 62 days (FY 2024: 56 days). The increase is partially explained by Reinhardt receivables (€2.1M) and partially by a single large customer (€1.2M) with an extended payment term agreed in Q2.
No unexplained variances identified. All movements are consistent with the updated understanding.
Documentation note: Analytical review workpaper filed. Each line item compared to H1 2024 and FY 2024 with expectations based on audit knowledge and the Reinhardt acquisition. Explanations documented.
5. Reconciliation of interim information to accounting records
Under ISRE 2410.29, the team confirms that the condensed consolidated interim financial statements reconcile to the underlying group trial balance. The Reinhardt trial balance has been extracted from SAP and translated to euros at the average and closing rates, with the translation methodology documented.
Documentation note: Reconciliation workpaper filed. Group trial balance agrees to interim financial statements. Reinhardt consolidation journal entries reviewed.
6. Written representations and conclusion
Management provides a representation letter confirming the completeness of information provided, that the interim financial information is prepared in accordance with IAS 34 , that all related party transactions have been disclosed, and that all events subsequent to the interim period end have been considered. The auditor issues an unmodified conclusion.
Documentation note: Management representation letter filed. Review report issued with unmodified conclusion per ISRE 2410.43.
The file should tell a story, and this one does: the auditor’s updated understanding (the Reinhardt acquisition) drives the focused procedures (inquiry on consolidation process, analytics on Reinhardt-specific impacts, reconciliation of the consolidation) and the focused procedures support the conclusion. A reviewer can trace the audit knowledge carried forward and the interim-specific work performed on top of it.
Practical checklist for your next ISRE 2410 engagement
- Confirm the engagement falls under ISRE 2410 (you are the entity’s independent auditor). If you are not the entity’s auditor, ISRE 2400 (Revised) applies and the procedures differ significantly (ISRE 2410.1-3a).
- Check whether the engagement letter for the annual audit covers the interim review. If not, agree separate terms before starting work (ISRE 2410.10-11).
- Prepare an update memo documenting changes since the last annual audit: new business activities, acquisitions or disposals, changes in accounting policies, changes in internal controls over interim financial reporting (ISRE 2410.12-17).
- Inquire of management on the specific topics listed in ISRE 2410.19-22: framework compliance, internal control changes, related parties, fraud, going concern. Read board and committee minutes for the interim period.
- Design analytical procedures that draw on your audit knowledge. Compare interim figures to prior period interim, to the most recent annual, and (where available) to budgets or forecasts. Document your expectation for each material line item and the explanation for each variance (ISRE 2410.23-25).
- Confirm the interim financial information reconciles to the underlying accounting records (ISRE 2410.29). For group engagements with manual consolidation processes, review the consolidation journal entries.
- Evaluate the effect of any misstatements identified, including prior-period unadjusted misstatements carried forward (ISRE 2410.28).
- The single most important thing: the efficiency of ISRE 2410 depends on the quality of your audit knowledge. If your annual audit file is weak on understanding the entity, your interim review file will be weak in the same places. Carry forward what you know. Let it drive the procedures.
Common mistakes
- Treating the interim review as a standalone engagement instead of building on audit knowledge. The IAASB designed ISRE 2410 on the assumption that the auditor carries forward a detailed understanding from the annual audit. Files that start from scratch duplicate work and miss the point of the standard (ISRE 2410.12-14).
- Omitting the review of board minutes. ISRE 2410.22 specifically requires the auditor to read the minutes of meetings of shareholders and those charged with governance (or inquire about matters discussed if minutes are unavailable). The FRC’s 2022-23 inspection cycle flagged this as a recurring deficiency in interim review files.
- Failing to consider going concern explicitly in the interim review. Even where the international standard lacks a specific going concern section, IAS 34 and local frameworks require disclosure of events and conditions that are significant to understanding changes since the last annual report. An interim review file with no documented going concern consideration (even if the conclusion is that no issues exist) will not pass a quality review.
Related content
- Going concern. Covers the going concern assessment under ISA 570 , with relevance to interim reviews where the applicable framework requires disclosure of going concern uncertainties.
- ISA 520 Analytical Review Calculator. Structure your interim review analytical procedures using the same expectation-versus-actual framework applied in the annual audit.
- ISRE 2400: How to perform a review when you are not the entity’s auditor. If you are not the entity’s auditor, ISRE 2400 (Revised) applies instead. This companion post covers the full procedure from acceptance through conclusion.
Related ciferi content
Related guides:
Put audit concepts into practice with these free tools:
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between ISRE 2410 and ISRE 2400?
ISRE 2410 applies when the practitioner is the entity's independent auditor. It assumes the auditor carries forward audit-based knowledge of the entity from the annual engagement. ISRE 2400 applies when the practitioner is not the entity's auditor and must build understanding from scratch. The procedures differ accordingly, with ISRE 2410 offering greater efficiency by drawing on existing audit knowledge.
Does ISRE 2410 require reading board minutes?
Yes. ISRE 2410.22 specifically requires the auditor to read the minutes of meetings of shareholders, those charged with governance, audit committees, and any other relevant committees. If minutes are not available, the auditor must inquire about the matters that were discussed. This is a specific procedural requirement, not a suggestion.
How should going concern be addressed in an interim review under ISRE 2410?
Although the international version of ISRE 2410 does not have an explicit going concern section, IAS 34 requires disclosure of events significant to understanding changes since the last annual report. In practice, the auditor should inquire whether any events raise doubt about going concern, update the assessment from the annual audit, review forecasts and covenant compliance, and check whether required disclosures are included.
Can the annual audit engagement letter cover the interim review?
Yes. ISRE 2410.11 notes that the terms of the interim review can be combined with the terms of the annual audit engagement. A separate engagement letter is not required if the annual letter already covers the interim review scope, the applicable standard, and the respective responsibilities.
Further reading and source references
- IAASB Handbook 2024: The authoritative source for the complete ISRE 2410 text.
- ISRE 2400 (Revised): Review of historical financial statements when the practitioner is not the entity's auditor.
- IAS 34 : Interim Financial Reporting. The applicable framework for most listed entity half-year reviews.
- ISA 570 : Going concern considerations, with relevance to interim reviews where going concern uncertainties arise.