When should the term "should" be used in auditing requirements?

The term "should" in auditing requirements is used as a presumptively mandatory requirement. This indicates that while there may be some flexibility in certain situations, there is generally an expectation that the action or behavior described by "should" will be followed unless there is a valid reason or justification for not doing so.

In the context of auditing standards, "should" communicates an important expectation that auditors must consider in their work. It signals a significant obligation that is foundational to the proper application of the standards, enhancing consistency and reliability in audit practices. However, this term is not absolute and recognizes that deviations might occur based on specific professional judgment. Thus, when auditors encounter a "should," they are advised to adhere to the guidance provided, as it reflects an essential component of best practice.

In contrast, the other interpretations do not adequately capture the intended meaning of "should" within the auditing framework. For instance, viewing it merely as a suggestion or only a flexible requirement underplays its importance and may lead to inconsistent applications of auditing standards.