1---2name: ifrs-conceptual-framework-and-accounting-judgements3description: Use when applying the IFRS Conceptual Framework to accounting policy development, recognition, measurement, materiality, presentation, disclosure, and judgement documentation when no Standard directly resolves the transaction or a Standard permits a policy choice.4---56# IFRS Conceptual Framework and Accounting Judgements78## Use When910Use for full-IFRS policy analysis, new or unusual transactions, policy choices,11materiality judgements, recognition/derecognition questions, measurement-basis12selection, and explanations that bridge economic substance to the applicable13Standard.1415## Do Not Use When1617Do not use the Framework to override an applicable IFRS Accounting Standard, to18replace the licensed Standard text, or to certify a client conclusion without19the required evidence and professional review.2021## Prerequisites2223- `doctrine/accounting-finance-doctrine.md` and `doctrine/references/policy-hierarchy.md`.24- The applicable IFRS Standard, implementation guidance, agenda decision, and25 current source-verification record where the transaction is within a Standard.26- `doctrine/source-register/ifrs/ifrs-advanced-2026.yaml` and the Digital27 Research source-evaluation and verification records.2829## Inputs3031| Artifact | Produced by | Required? | Validation |32|---|---|---:|---|33| Transaction fact pattern | Engagement owner / operations | Required | Parties, rights, obligations, timing, uncertainty and evidence are identified. |34| Applicable-standard search | IFRS reviewer / researcher | Required | Standards considered, exclusions and source IDs are recorded. |35| Policy and judgement log | Controller / preparer | Required | Facts, requirements, estimates, judgements and inferences are separated. |36| Materiality context | Reporting owner | Required when presentation/disclosure is affected | Qualitative and quantitative factors and affected users are documented. |37| Reviewer route | Doctrine owner | Required | Named role, independence/competence check and approval state are present. |3839## Outputs4041| Artifact | Consumed by | Acceptance evidence |42|---|---|---|43| Conceptual Framework decision memo | Controller, IFRS reviewer, auditor liaison | Decision tree completed; applicable Standard precedence tested; source IDs and caveats present. |44| Policy/judgement workpaper | Financial statements and notes | Recognition, measurement, presentation, disclosure and materiality conclusions trace to evidence. |45| Alternatives and sensitivity log | Management and audit committee | Rejected alternatives, uncertainty, effects and reviewer route are visible. |46| Exception and release record | Release owner | Missing source, unresolved judgement or human-review blocker is not hidden. |4748## Workflow49501. Define the reporting entity, reporting basis, transaction boundary, reporting51 date, primary users and decision to be supported.522. Search for a directly applicable Standard, Interpretation, scope exception,53 implementation guidance and relevant current agenda decision before using the54 Framework.553. If no Standard applies, use the Framework decision tree: identify the56 reporting entity and elements, assess recognition/derecognition, select a57 measurement basis, then design faithful presentation and material disclosure.584. If a Standard permits an accounting-policy choice, list the permitted choices59 and apply the entity's documented policy consistently; do not use the60 Framework to invent a third option.615. Separate source facts, Standard requirements, management estimates,62 judgements, analyst inferences and recommendations.636. Reconcile the policy outcome to the CoA/reporting map, affected statements,64 notes, tax/statutory boundary, and control evidence.657. Route complex judgement, material uncertainty, and final reporting to the66 named IFRS reviewer; unresolved evidence is `blocked` or `NOT ASSESSED`.6768## Decision Rules6970| Question | Decision | Required evidence |71|---|---|---|72| Does an IFRS Standard directly apply? | Apply that Standard and its scope/measurement/disclosure requirements. | Standard/source ID and scope analysis. |73| Does a Standard permit a policy choice? | Select and document one permitted policy; apply consistently and disclose material policy information. | Policy owner, effective date, alternatives and impact. |74| No Standard directly applies? | Develop a policy consistent with Framework definitions, recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure concepts. | Framework memo and search record. |75| Framework conflicts with a Standard? | The Standard controls; record the conflict and do not override it. | Paragraph-level reviewer note. |76| Is the information material by nature or magnitude? | Present/disclose or aggregate only when aggregation does not obscure material information; document the judgement. | Materiality workpaper and affected-user analysis. |77| Is evidence, source currentness or reviewer authority missing? | Narrow the conclusion and mark it pending/blocked. | Exception register and recovery owner. |7879## Acceptance Evidence8081- `references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md` is completed for the82 transaction.83- `references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md` contains facts, sources,84 alternatives, conclusion, impact, uncertainty and reviewer route.85- `examples/no-specific-standard-policy.md` demonstrates an illustrative86 policy-development path without presenting it as client advice.87- Applicable specialist routes are cross-referenced and the ledger/reporting88 impact reconciles to source evidence.8990## Evidence Produced9192| Category | Artifact | Format | Example |93|---|---|---|---|94| Correctness | Framework decision memo | Markdown decision record using `references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md` | `docs/ifrs-workpapers/framework-decision-<id>.md` |95| Release evidence | Judgement and materiality workpaper | Markdown workpaper using `references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md` | `docs/ifrs-workpapers/judgement-<id>.md` |9697## Anti-Patterns9899- Citing the Framework while an applicable Standard was not searched.100- Treating the Framework as a higher-level rule that overrides a Standard.101- Combining facts, estimates and analyst inferences into one conclusion.102- Calling a policy choice “management preference” without listing permitted103 alternatives and financial-statement impact.104- Using materiality as a reason to omit a required control or to conceal a105 qualitatively material related-party, covenant, or risk item.106- Publishing an unsupported policy because the transaction is unusual.107108## Files109110- `references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md`111- `references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md`112- `examples/no-specific-standard-policy.md`113114## Review Metadata115116| Field | Value |117|---|---|118| Owner role | IFRS policy and judgement reviewer |119| Reviewer roles | IFRS technical reviewer; controller; auditor liaison where reporting is affected |120| Last reviewed | 2026-08-27 |121| Next review due | 2026-12-31 |122| Release state | Active doctrine route; final client output remains reviewer-gated |123| Caveat | The Conceptual Framework is not a Standard and cannot override an applicable Standard. |124125Last reviewed: 2026-08-27. Next review due: 2026-12-31.126127## References128129- `doctrine/source-register/ifrs/ifrs-advanced-2026.yaml`130- `docs/research/ifrs-advanced-2026-08/source-evaluation.md`131- `docs/research/ifrs-advanced-2026-08/verification-manifest.md`
peterbamuhigire