A practitioner should accept an assurance engagement only when?

A practitioner should accept an assurance engagement only when the practitioner's conclusion is to be contained in a written report. This is important because assurance engagements are characterized by the provision of a structured report that conveys the practitioner's findings and level of assurance regarding the subject matter. A written report serves as a formal communication tool that provides stakeholders with reliable information, which is essential for decision-making.

The requirement for a written report underscores the significance of documenting the professional judgment and assessments made during the engagement, as well as aligning with the standards and expectations for assurance services. This practice ensures accountability, transparency, and enables the users of the report to understand the conclusions drawn from the evidence collected during the engagement.

Acceptance of an engagement where conclusions are reported in writing also promotes professional integrity and trust, as stakeholders rely on documented evidence for critical evaluations related to the assurance subject.

Considering the other options, complexity alone does not determine the appropriateness of accepting an engagement, as practitioners can handle complex situations with the right expertise and resources. Similarly, positive past experiences with a client can influence the decision, but they do not constitute a definitive criterion for engagement acceptance. Lastly, the fee mechanism does not define the engagement's acceptability; quality and relevance of the work have greater significance in such