ifrs-conceptual-framework-and-accounting-judgements

name	ifrs-conceptual-framework-and-accounting-judgements
description	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.
status	active
metadata	{"portable":true,"category":"02-ifrs-core-standards","compatible_with":["claude-code","codex"]}

IFRS Conceptual Framework and Accounting Judgements

Use When

Use for full-IFRS policy analysis, new or unusual transactions, policy choices, materiality judgements, recognition/derecognition questions, measurement-basis selection, and explanations that bridge economic substance to the applicable Standard.

Do Not Use When

Do not use the Framework to override an applicable IFRS Accounting Standard, to replace the licensed Standard text, or to certify a client conclusion without the required evidence and professional review.

Prerequisites

• doctrine/accounting-finance-doctrine.md and doctrine/references/policy-hierarchy.md.
• The applicable IFRS Standard, implementation guidance, agenda decision, and current source-verification record where the transaction is within a Standard.
• doctrine/source-register/ifrs/ifrs-advanced-2026.yaml and the Digital Research source-evaluation and verification records.

Inputs

Artifact	Produced by	Required?	Validation
Transaction fact pattern	Engagement owner / operations	Required	Parties, rights, obligations, timing, uncertainty and evidence are identified.
Applicable-standard search	IFRS reviewer / researcher	Required	Standards considered, exclusions and source IDs are recorded.
Policy and judgement log	Controller / preparer	Required	Facts, requirements, estimates, judgements and inferences are separated.
Materiality context	Reporting owner	Required when presentation/disclosure is affected	Qualitative and quantitative factors and affected users are documented.
Reviewer route	Doctrine owner	Required	Named role, independence/competence check and approval state are present.

Outputs

Artifact	Consumed by	Acceptance evidence
Conceptual Framework decision memo	Controller, IFRS reviewer, auditor liaison	Decision tree completed; applicable Standard precedence tested; source IDs and caveats present.
Policy/judgement workpaper	Financial statements and notes	Recognition, measurement, presentation, disclosure and materiality conclusions trace to evidence.
Alternatives and sensitivity log	Management and audit committee	Rejected alternatives, uncertainty, effects and reviewer route are visible.
Exception and release record	Release owner	Missing source, unresolved judgement or human-review blocker is not hidden.

Workflow

1. Define the reporting entity, reporting basis, transaction boundary, reporting date, primary users and decision to be supported.
2. Search for a directly applicable Standard, Interpretation, scope exception, implementation guidance and relevant current agenda decision before using the Framework.
3. If no Standard applies, use the Framework decision tree: identify the reporting entity and elements, assess recognition/derecognition, select a measurement basis, then design faithful presentation and material disclosure.
4. If a Standard permits an accounting-policy choice, list the permitted choices and apply the entity's documented policy consistently; do not use the Framework to invent a third option.
5. Separate source facts, Standard requirements, management estimates, judgements, analyst inferences and recommendations.
6. Reconcile the policy outcome to the CoA/reporting map, affected statements, notes, tax/statutory boundary, and control evidence.
7. Route complex judgement, material uncertainty, and final reporting to the named IFRS reviewer; unresolved evidence is blocked or NOT ASSESSED.

Decision Rules

Question	Decision	Required evidence
Does an IFRS Standard directly apply?	Apply that Standard and its scope/measurement/disclosure requirements.	Standard/source ID and scope analysis.
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.
No Standard directly applies?	Develop a policy consistent with Framework definitions, recognition, measurement, presentation and disclosure concepts.	Framework memo and search record.
Framework conflicts with a Standard?	The Standard controls; record the conflict and do not override it.	Paragraph-level reviewer note.
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.
Is evidence, source currentness or reviewer authority missing?	Narrow the conclusion and mark it pending/blocked.	Exception register and recovery owner.

Acceptance Evidence

• references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md is completed for the transaction.
• references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md contains facts, sources, alternatives, conclusion, impact, uncertainty and reviewer route.
• examples/no-specific-standard-policy.md demonstrates an illustrative policy-development path without presenting it as client advice.
• Applicable specialist routes are cross-referenced and the ledger/reporting impact reconciles to source evidence.

Evidence Produced

Category	Artifact	Format	Example
Correctness	Framework decision memo	Markdown decision record using references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md	docs/ifrs-workpapers/framework-decision-<id>.md
Release evidence	Judgement and materiality workpaper	Markdown workpaper using references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md	docs/ifrs-workpapers/judgement-<id>.md

Anti-Patterns

• Citing the Framework while an applicable Standard was not searched.
• Treating the Framework as a higher-level rule that overrides a Standard.
• Combining facts, estimates and analyst inferences into one conclusion.
• Calling a policy choice “management preference” without listing permitted alternatives and financial-statement impact.
• Using materiality as a reason to omit a required control or to conceal a qualitatively material related-party, covenant, or risk item.
• Publishing an unsupported policy because the transaction is unusual.

Files

• references/conceptual-framework-decision-tree.md
• references/judgement-and-materiality-workpaper.md
• examples/no-specific-standard-policy.md

Review Metadata

Field	Value
Owner role	IFRS policy and judgement reviewer
Reviewer roles	IFRS technical reviewer; controller; auditor liaison where reporting is affected
Last reviewed	2026-08-27
Next review due	2026-12-31
Release state	Active doctrine route; final client output remains reviewer-gated
Caveat	The Conceptual Framework is not a Standard and cannot override an applicable Standard.

Last reviewed: 2026-08-27. Next review due: 2026-12-31.

References

• doctrine/source-register/ifrs/ifrs-advanced-2026.yaml
• docs/research/ifrs-advanced-2026-08/source-evaluation.md
• docs/research/ifrs-advanced-2026-08/verification-manifest.md