CAS3701 Portfolio Assignment 8 2026 - Due October 2026

CAS3701 Portfolio Assignment 8 2026 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 This is an individual assessment! ASSESSMENT 8: STUDENT QUESTION AND ANSWER BOOK OCTOBER / NOVEMBER 2026 Due Date: 30 October 2026 Total: 100 Marks TECHNICAL EVIDENCE CRITICAL JUDGEMENT PROFESSIONAL ACTION Examiners (first) Ms M Mhatlhe, Dr. Yaeesh Yasseen Examiners (second) Mrs M Evans External Examiner Prof. J Christian STUDENT NUMBER: This assessment consists of 33 pages. Page 1 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 SUMMATIVE ASSESSMENT INSTRUCTIONS:  This is an individual, take-home summative assessment for CAS3701 module.  Answer directly in the spaces provided in the answer book below. The response areas will expand while you type. Your responses must be typed and they must adhere to the following formatting requirements:  Font type: Arial  Font size: 11  Line spacing of 1.5  Justified  Convert the completed document to a single PDF before submission and check that all pages are readable.  Please remember to complete the Honesty Declaration upon uploading the file.  PDF files must not be password-protected or uploaded as “read-only” files.  Students are advised to preview submissions to ensure that the correct file has been uploaded. Marks awarded for incorrect submissions will be the student’s final mark. No opportunity for resubmission will be granted.  Incorrect file format and uncollated files will not be considered.  Submissions will only be accepted from registered student accounts.  NO emailed submissions will be accepted.  UNISA has a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism and any other forms of academic dishonesty. Students suspected of academic misconduct will be subjected to disciplinary processes. Please refer to the university’s policies on Plagiarism, Academic Integrity, and Copyright Infringement.  The module uses Turnitin as a proctoring tool. For instructions on how to use ‘Turnitin’ refer to the ‘Miscellaneous’ folder on the module site. The folder can be found under ‘Additional Resources’ on Moodle.  If you use generative AI, search engines, grammar software or another digital tool, disclose that use and retain the relevant prompt, output, source and verification trail. Refer to the 2026 UNISA Artificial Intelligence Policy Guidelines for further guidance. Failure to disclose all AI usage will constitute plagiarism.  Complete the AI-use and source declaration at the end of Part C. Page 2 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8  You may consult prescribed standards and legitimate sources. Cite the source or paragraph that materially informed the judgement. Do not reproduce long definitions. Reference all sources used using the CAS referencing guide found under ‘Additional Resources’.  All answers must be your original work.  Marks are awarded for case-based judgement and application, not long generic answers.  The answer book provided in Part C must be used to complete this examination.  Include the rubric at the end of the assessment. Do not complete or alter the rubric.  Use the following naming convention for your assessment script: Student number_ CAS3701_2026_Assessment 8 How to approach this open-book assessment: 1. Read Part B first, so that you know what each question asks. Then read the case in Part A with the questions in mind. 2. Use the question-to-dossier map in Part B to find the sections each question draws on. AUTHOR PRACTICE AND RESPONSIBLE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AUTHORSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY The conceptual architecture, critical accounting position, pedagogic design, assessment requirements and final academic decisions are the intellectual work of the authors. Editorial software did not determine the curriculum, select evidence for students or replace academic responsibility. The author adopts the view of using artificial intelligence responsibly. The authors maintain a clear philosophical stance: artificial intelligence is fundamentally a tool that enables the human mind to rapidly design and direct processes that would otherwise take our physical senses and bodies much longer to execute. Because the human mind is the ultimate architect of this technology, it is logically impossible to equate the creation with its creator. Therefore, our robust view is that humanity must strictly maintain its sovereign status as the creator when interacting with artificial intelligence. OPENAI CODEX IN CHATGPT WORK GRAMMARLY Used in a bounded editorial capacity for syntax review, visual construction, document formatting and consistency checking. The system was not delegated academic judgement responsibility. The authors do recognise that the power tools of AI have helped them to work much more efficiently and faster. Used for language review and editorial refinement. Suggested changes remained subject to the authors’ disciplinary judgement and final approval. The authors reviewed, revised and authorised the complete document and accept responsibility for its final form. Page 3 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Contents Part A Case study scenario Part B Required and assessment questions Part C Answer book Part D Case-fact embedded Rubric Page 4 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 PART A: CASE STUDY Student’s Role You are a member of the Board Finance, Risk and Social Accountability Committee for Kalahari Alloy and Chrome Limited. The full board has asked your committee to review management’s emergency production recovery proposal before the company approves or regularises the involvement of Marula Route Services. Read the detailed information below on the company. Company Background and Strategy Kalahari Alloy and Chrome Limited (“KAC”) is a South African mining and mineral processing company operating near Steelpoort and Burgersfort. KAC mines chrome ore and produces processed chrome concentrate for local and export markets. The company’s operations include the following:  one open-cast chrome mine  one processing plant with two furnaces  one mobile crushing yard  one shared rail siding  diesel-intensive contractor transport operations  haulage routes through Ga-Moraba village and nearby villages  export logistics through the Maputo and Durban corridors KAC was not one of the great mining houses whose names moved markets in London before breakfast. It was smaller, harder and more exposed. It operated near the Steelpoort and Burgersfort chrome belt. It sold processed chrome concentrate into local and export markets. It lived inside the narrow corridor between commodity price, furnace instability, logistics failure, contractor reliability, lender patience and community tolerance. KAC’s 2026 strategy is called KAC 2030: Responsible Minerals, Reliable Supply. Strategic pillar Management description Current pressure point Restore production reliability Stabilise furnace availability and plant throughput. Furnace 2 availability has fallen to 68%. Protect financial resilience Preserve cash, lender confidence and covenant headroom*. Covenant headroom* is only R31 million. Improve operational discipline Reduce downtime, improve logistics and clear inventory. Inventory days have increased to 79. Strengthen responsible sourcing Use approved suppliers with verified documents. Emergency supplier work started before complete approval. Maintain licence to operate Protect safety, community trust and road users. A school-road incident was narrowly avoided. * Covenant headroom refers to the margin of safety or buffer between KAC’s actual financial performance and the strict limits (covenants) set by its lenders in a loan agreement. It measures how far KAC is from breaching a condition in its loan agreements and causing a technical default on its liabilities. KAC creates value by supplying chrome ore, a critical mineral, to industrial markets while maintaining disciplined operations and responsible stakeholder relationships. Chrome ore is globally used as a Page 5 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 strategic resource in producing stainless steel, high corrosion resistance, and in defence and aerospace applications. The Red Dust Decision The dust before sunrise The red dust reached everything. It lay on the weighbridge window in a thin, stubborn film. It settled in the grooves of the security boom. It clung to the boots of the artisans leaving Furnace 2 after the night shift, men who could hear a furnace misbehaving before the dashboard had time to translate heat into numbers. It turned the white contractor bakkies a tired brown before sunrise. It drifted across the gravel road towards Ga-Moraba village, where children in grey jerseys crossed the haul road before the first taxis began to shout their way through the morning. By 05:40 AM on Monday,9 March 2026, the dust had reached the board. The board pack file was emailed by the Risk Management unit and it arrived without a covering message. Only an attachment: KAC_Production_Recovery_Regularisation_v4_ Naledi Maseko, the Company Secretary, noticed the word before she opened the board pack file. Regularisation. In accounting, the word sounded tidy. In a boardroom, it usually meant something had already happened. She opened the file. The first page was a photograph of Furnace 2 at sunrise. Orange light on steel. Blue-grey smoke lifting into a cold winter sky. A line of ore trucks waiting neatly in the yard. The photograph made heat look productive and danger look managed. The second page was less polite. Revenue at risk: R86 million. Export penalty exposure: R14.7 million. Covenant headroom: R31 million. Furnace 2 availability: 68%. Inventory days: 79. Emergency supplier: already mobilised for two trial loads. Weighbridge: offline for 11 hours. Manual slips: used for two loads. Diesel route logs: incomplete. Supplier insurance: missing. Driver induction: 22 of 51 drivers completed. Community complaint: school-road incident narrowly avoided. AI executive summary: recommends approval. Internal Audit status: not evidence-ready for unrestricted approval. Naledi sat back. Page 6 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 The plant had not lied. Numbers seldom do. But someone had arranged them so that the answer seemed to arrive before the question. The Committee meeting above the plant The Board’s Finance, Risk and Social Accountability Committee met that Monday at 08:00 in the small boardroom above the plant administration block. You also attended as a member of the committee. The boardroom had glass walls, a silent coffee machine and a view across the ore stockpiles towards the road that ran past Ga-Moraba village. The chairperson, Advocate Thandiwe Mbeki, placed the printed board pack file in front of her. She read with a pen in hand. She had the habit of circling verbs. “Approve.” “Regularise.” “Protect.” “Manageable.” “Ongoing.” Then she looked up. “Before we discuss approval,” she said, “I want to know what has already happened.” The Chief Financial Officer (CFO), Pieter Kruger, did not flinch. He had spent the weekend with lenders, logistics contractors and an export customer who had stopped using polite language. His revised forecast had narrowed until it resembled a corridor with locked doors. The Operations Director, Willem Botha, looked as if he had slept in his work shirt. Furnace 2 had been unstable for six weeks. The plant was producing unevenly. Inventory was building up in the wrong place. The rail siding was congested. The October export window was closing. The Procurement Manager, Rakesh Naidoo, kept his hands folded on the table. Marula Route Services (Marula), he said, was real, available and known in the district. It had trucks. It had mobile crushing capacity. It had done similar work at Ga-Malekana village in 2025. The Tax Manager, Amina Patel, had brought a folder marked VAT / Diesel / Supplier Support. It was thinner than she wanted. She did not like files that depended on explanations rather than documents. The Internal Audit Manager, Farah Cassim, had brought an exception note and no apology. Her function was not to stop production. Her function was to say when a sentence had run ahead of evidence. The Community Relations Manager, Sello Matlala, had not opened his laptop. He had a printed complaint from the Ga-Moraba School Governing Body. He placed it face down on the table as if it were a photograph. Naledi did not have a vote. Still, her initials were on the board pack file. Prepared by: N. Maseko That was how responsibility entered quietly. Page 7 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 ANNEXURES - Documents discussed at the Committee meeting 1.1 CFO memorandum During the committee meeting, the CFO, submitted the following memorandum in support of supplier regularisation of Marula as a service provider for KAC. Supplier regularisation is a process whereby an existing supplier relationship that is non-compliant is retrospectively approved so that the supplier is now formally aligned with KAC’s procurement and finance policies. Marula had already done trial work for KAC in the prior 2025 financial year and was appointed outside of KAC’s normal procurement processes. See extract below of the memorandum: From: Pieter Kruger, Chief Financial Officer To: Board Finance, Risk and Social Accountability Committee Subject: Emergency production recovery and supplier regularisation Dear Chairperson The plant cannot absorb another month of reduced throughput. The revised forecast shows that if we delay mobilisation by 21 days, we risk missing the October export window and triggering customer penalties estimated at R14.7 million. Lenders have not called a breach, but they have requested weekly liquidity updates. Our covenant headroom is now narrow. If we do not recover throughput before month-end, the liquidity forecast becomes materially weaker. Marula has available mobile crushing capacity and haulage trucks. The supplier completed similar work at the neighbouring Ga-Malekana operation in 2025. Procurement has obtained its CIPC registration, tax compliance status, VAT registration and BBBEE certificate. I accept that the file is not perfect. However, a perfect file in three weeks’ time will not move ore today. I recommend board approval of a three-month emergency appointment, with outstanding documents completed during mobilisation. This is not a governance shortcut. It is a commercial response to an operational emergency. Internal Audit note in margin: A commercial emergency can explain urgency. It cannot create evidence. 1.2 Financial and operating performance and forecast report The CFO tabled and presented the following dashboard before the committee. Pieter Kruger explained that the revised forecast assumes Marula is regularised within seven days and full mobilisation begins within ten days. A delay of 21 days may reduce revenue by a further R34 million and may require lender waiver discussions. Indicator 2025 actual 2026 forecast BEFORE regularisation 2026 revised forecast AFTER regularisation Revenue R2 180 million R2 340 million R2 254 million Revenue at risk if no recovery N/A N/A R86 million Gross profit margin 26.8% 27.2% 22.9% Page 8 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Indicator 2025 actual 2026 forecast BEFORE regularisation 2026 revised forecast AFTER regularisation EBITDA R436 million R468 million R352 million Finance costs R81 million R92 million R108 million Profit before tax R188 million R204 million R76 million Net debt R940 million R1 080 million R1 210 million Covenant headroom R118 million R74 million R31 million Average debtor days 46 days 53 days 66 days Inventory days 44 days 57 days 79 days Furnace 2 availability 82% 78% 68% Lost production days 7 days 11 days 26 days Export penalty exposure N/A N/A R14.7 million Chair’s handwritten note: The forecast assumes regularisation is possible. What evidence makes it possible? 1.3 Financial option evaluation schedule The Finance division prepared the following schedule, which demonstrates the financial effect of each supplier regularisation option. Assume all amounts below are before VAT unless stated otherwise. Revenue Indicative net Option Description 3-month estimated operating/recovery cost protected / Additional financial consequence recovered over 3 months financial effect before wider risk judgement Option A: Stop Marula and run internal recovery Stop Marula trial work and use internal teams, overtime and delayed maintenance. R20.4 million R30.0 million Possible maintenance deferral risk not yet quantified. R9.6 million positive Option B: Fully approve Marula for three months Regularise Marula for three months and allow full mobilisation. R40.8 million R63.0 million Road controls not included in first forecast. R22.2 million positive before evidence risks Option C: Run accelerated 21day tender Stop full mobilisation of Marula and run a R3.2 million tender/admin cost Long-term procurement integrity Possible R51.9 million adverse effect including Negative in short term, but cleaner procurement shortened tender among approved suppliers. protected, but 21-day delay may reduce revenue by R34.0 million and expose KAC to R14.7 million tender/admin cost, delay loss and penalty exposure. Page 9 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Revenue Indicative net Option Description 3-month estimated operating/recovery cost protected / Additional financial consequence recovered over 3 months financial effect before wider risk judgement penalties. Option D: Conditional bridge approval Approve Marula for 45 days only, limited to capped work, subject to evidence gates*, road controls and parallel tender. R22.2 million for 45day bridge, including shortcontract premium R27.0 million to R31.5 million Immediate road controls for the first month, estimated at R0.665 million, with recurring controls of approximately R0.305 million per month thereafter. Approximately R4.8m-R9.3m positive before road controls, or about R4.1mR8.6m after road controls for the first month. *Evidence gate: a condition that must be met and evidenced before the next step may proceed. Finance note: Option B appears strongest on short-term net recovery before evidence risk. Option D is financially less attractive on the face of it, but it limits the risk of unrestricted approval while allowing partial production recovery. Naledi’s working note: The option with the highest financial recovery is not automatically the option the board can defend. The option with the cleanest process may not protect production quickly enough. The recommendation must carry both facts. 1.4 Tax, VAT, diesel and payment schedule Amina Patel, the Tax Manager, prepared the following note for the committee. She reminded the committee that tax consequences are not only about whether a deduction or VAT input may exist. They are also about whether the company has the evidence to support the tax position. KAC is a registered VAT vendor; its sales of chrome concentrate are taxable supplies. KAC is registered for diesel refunds on its own qualifying mining activities and supplies diesel to contractors, including Marula, from its own bulk tanks. Diesel issued to contractors is recorded against route logs. You are not required to calculate a diesel rebate or VAT amount. Focus on the evidence needed to support VAT, diesel and payment positions. Issue Current fact pattern Tax / VAT / payment implication Evidence required before claim or payment VAT input on Marula invoices Marula’s VAT registration is attached, but bank verification and contract approval are incomplete. KAC may claim input VAT only if it holds a valid tax invoice and the service is acquired for taxable Valid tax invoice, verified VAT vendor status, verified bank details, approved contract or bridge supplies. Weak supplier verification and incomplete support may create and audit-trail risk. agreement, evidence of services received. Diesel rebate support Marula may perform mixed activities: hauling, crushing Qualifying and nonqualifying diesel use must Signed diesel logs, route sheets, activity split, Page 10 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Issue Current fact pattern Tax / VAT / payment implication Evidence required before claim or payment support and road transport. Diesel route logs are incomplete. be separated. Unsupported claims may be disallowed and may attract penalties and interest. supervisor sign-off and Tax Manager review before claims. Supplier payment support Manual weighbridge slips were used for two trial loads when the weighbridge was offline. Payment based on weak tonnage support may lead to overpayment, disputes, audit findings and weak VAT support. Weighbridge reconciliation*, manual slip review, delivery confirmation, payment approval trail and exception sign-off. Bank verification Bank confirmation has not yet been independently verified. Payment before verification creates fraud and misdirection-of-payment risk. It may also weaken the payment audit trail. Independent bank verification by Finance before any material payment. Pricing and contract terms Procurement says pricing is market-related, but no benchmark is attached. Full contract is not finalised. If pricing is excessive or terms unclear, payments may be processed before the board can defend the commercial basis of the expense. Pricing benchmark, signed bridge contract, scope, rates, liability terms and termination rights. *Weighbridge reconciliation means matching recorded tonnage to delivery and payment records Tax Manager’s handwritten note: Emergency work can be approved quickly. Tax evidence cannot be invented later. 1.5 Financing and liquidity note KAC’s current loan facility agreement contains a net-debt-to-EBITDA covenant and requires monthly liquidity reporting when covenant headroom falls below R50 million. Headroom is now R31 million. Management has identified three ways to fund the emergency recovery costs and related road-safety controls. You are not required to calculate detailed interest costs. Focus on liquidity, covenant sensitivity and whether the funding route distorts the board’s supplier approval decision. Funding option Description Approximate financial effect Professional judgement issue Option 1: Draw down existing revolving credit facility Use available bank facility to fund emergency recovery and road controls. Interest at 10.25% per annum. Fastest cash access; increases net debt and reduces covenant headroom. Supports urgency but may worsen lender sensitivity if evidence gaps remain unresolved. Option 2: Supplier credit from Marula Marula offers 45-day payment terms if full threemonth approval is granted. A 2.5% premium applies to deferred amounts. Preserves short-term cash but increases total supplier cost and may pressure the board into broader approval. Financing terms may influence governance judgement and create expectation of longer award. Option 3: Use cash buffer Use internal cash Avoids additional debt but May solve one emergency Page 11 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Funding option Description Approximate financial effect Professional judgement issue earmarked for furnace maintenance and rail siding repairs. reduces operational resilience. by weakening another control area. CFO comment: Supplier credit reduces immediate cash pressure. Internal Audit comment: Supplier credit should not be allowed to purchase board comfort. A payment term is not neutral when it rewards the board for approving more than the evidence supports. 1.6 Marula supplier file File item Status Comment CIPC registration Provided Registration appears valid. Tax compliance status Provided Valid on date obtained. VAT registration Provided VAT certificate provided in the file. Bank verification Incomplete Bank confirmation not yet independently verified by Finance. BBBEE certificate Provided Level 2 certificate provided in the file. Prior work reference Provided Ga-Malekana operation confirms similar work in 2025 with no major reported safety findings. Insurance letter Missing Broker letter requested but not yet received. Driver training records Incomplete 22 of 51 drivers have completed KAC induction. Conflict declaration Incomplete One Marula director shares a surname with a KAC procurement supervisor. Relationship not confirmed. Pricing benchmark Incomplete Procurement states the price is market-related, but no written benchmark is attached. Contract approval Not finalised Letter of intent* signed by Operations for trial loads. Full contract still with Legal. Trial loads Completed Two trial loads completed before board approval. Weighbridge support Exception Weighbridge offline for 11 hours. Manual slips used for two loads. *Letter of intent is a document showing intention to contract; it is not a full, approved contract. The supplier file answers the simplest question first: Marula exists. It does not answer the harder board question: whether Marula can be mobilised safely, fairly, lawfully and with an audit trail strong enough to support payment, VAT, diesel claims and later scrutiny. Page 12 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 1.7 Internal Audit exception note Internal Audit performed a rapid review of the Marula emergency process. Internal Audit’s note is included as a source of evidence. You are not required to perform audit procedures or prepare an audit report. Finding Evidence Risk rating Internal Audit view Work began before full board approval Two trial loads completed under letter of intent. High Board is being asked to regularise an action already partly taken. Supplier onboarding incomplete Missing insurance, incomplete driver induction, unresolved conflict declaration. High Supplier should not operate unrestricted until minimum evidence gates are met. Manual weighbridge slips used Weighbridge offline for 11 hours during two trial loads. High Payment, VAT and tonnage evidence may be weak. Diesel documentation incomplete Contractor route logs not consistently signed. Medium/High Diesel rebate and cost allocation support may be challenged. Road-safety control Near miss reported at Ga- High Increased haulage without road controls absent Moraba school road. may transfer risk to community. Pricing support weak No independent pricing benchmark. Medium Board cannot conclude the rate is fair or reasonable. Internal Audit comment: The proposal may be commercially understandable. It is not yet evidence-ready for unrestricted approval. Internal Audit is not being asked to stop the plant. It is asking the board not to mistake commercial need for evidence. That distinction is uncomfortable, but it is the distinction on which professional judgement often turns. 1.8 Community road-safety complaint Extract from complaint submitted by the Ga-Moraba School Governing Body and community road committee: On Thursday morning a Marula truck passed the school bend while learners were crossing. The driver braked hard and the children ran back. Nobody was injured, but this was not because the road is safe. It was because the children moved quickly. The mine speaks of responsible minerals. We ask who carries responsibility when trucks move before the road is ready. Community concerns raised:  trucks pass the school entrance between 06:00 and 07:30  dust suppression is inconsistent  the gravel shoulder has deteriorated  there is no temporary traffic marshal  speed signage is faded  complaints are acknowledged but not closed Page 13 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Suggested controls and costing to address community concerns: Control Estimated cost Two traffic marshals during school crossing hours R88 000 per month Temporary speed signage and reflective markers R360 000 once-off Dust suppression on school route R165 000 per month Daily haulage curfew between 06:15 and 07:15 Operational scheduling cost Community transport liaison officer for three months R52 000 per month The CFO had included the road-safety costs below the line in the first forecast. Naledi noticed this. Naledi’s handwritten comment: If the emergency contract increases truck movement, the road-safety plan cannot remain a future promise. Costs that protect children are not “below the line” to the people standing at the road. 1.9 Missing evidence schedule Evidence item Current status Why it matters Signed full contract Missing Board cannot confirm final legal terms, scope, liability and exit rights. Insurance confirmation Missing Safety and liability exposure remains unclear. Driver induction records Incomplete Uninducted drivers increase safety and compliance risk. Conflict declaration Incomplete Procurement integrity cannot be concluded. Bank verification Incomplete Payment control and fraud risk remain open. Pricing benchmark Missing Board cannot conclude that the rate is fair. Weighbridge reconciliation* Missing for trial loads Payment, VAT and tonnage support are weak. Diesel route logs Incomplete Diesel rebate and cost allocation support are weak. Road-safety plan Not approved Community risk remains unfunded and uncontrolled. 1.10 AI-generated executive summary The CFO’s office used an internal AI drafting tool to prepare the following executive summary for the board pack: Management recommends approval of the Marula emergency recovery proposal. The proposed decision restores production, protects liquidity and maintains stakeholder confidence. Supplier risk is manageable because Marula has valid company registration, tax compliance, VAT registration, BBBEE credentials and prior experience. Community engagement is ongoing, and operational recovery will improve the company’s ability to fund further stakeholder commitments. The proposal is a commercially responsible response to short-term disruption and should be approved. Page 14 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 CFO note: This wording is a drafting aid only. The committee must satisfy itself that the summary is complete and supported. Chair’s handwritten note: Smooth wording is not evidence. Naledi read the AI summary again. It was not wrong in the obvious way. That was the problem. It was almost right. It captured the CFO’s preferred story and sanded down the jagged edges: trial loads before approval, missing insurance, uninducted drivers, manual slips, unsigned diesel logs, a school-road complaint and supplier credit that might quietly buy approval. The danger was not that the AI had invented a fact. The danger was that it had arranged the facts into comfort. The Committee Meeting Closure At 09:10 AM, the boardroom settled into the silence that comes when everyone knows the decision is not clean. Finance spoke of covenant headroom. Operations spoke of furnace heat, export windows and tired crews. Procurement spoke of a supplier that existed and could move. Tax spoke of logs, slips and SARS. Internal Audit spoke of evidence that had not yet arrived. Community Relations spoke of a child stepping back from a truck. The Chair closed the file. “We are not deciding whether production matters,” she said. “It does. We are deciding whether urgency is enough to regularise the way this decision has begun.” She turned to Naledi. “Prepare the committee recommendation. Not a perfect answer. A defensible one.” Page 15 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 PART B: REQUIRED As a member of the Board Finance, Risk and Social Accountability Committee of KAC, you have been asked to review management’s emergency production recovery proposal before the Board approves or regularises the involvement of Marula. Your task is not to write a general essay on risk management. Your task is to read the board dossier, test the evidence, interpret the financial and tax consequences, evaluate the financing choices, and advise whether the board should approve, reject, defer, amend or conditionally approve management’s proposal. Refer to the questions below and answer them individually. Question-to-dossier map Question Focus Marks Q1 Real problem and board regularisation decision The Red Dust Decision, 1.1 to 1.2, 1.6 to 1.7, 1.9 and The Committee 12 Meeting Closure Q2 Financial option evaluation 1.3, read with 1.6 to 1.9 15 Q3 Tax, VAT, diesel and payment consequences 1.4, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9 15 Q4 Financing and liquidity judgement 1.5, read with 1.2 12 Q5 Evidence sufficiency and risk transfer 1.6 to 1.9 16 Q6 AI summary, stakeholder voice and responsible judgement 1.8 and 1.10, read with 1.6 to 1.9 10 Q7 Final board decision minute The whole dossier, and your answers to Q1 to Q6 10 Communication Structure, clarity and professional integration The Red Dust Decision, 1.1 to 1.2, 1.6, 1.7 and 1.9 10 Total 100 Question 1: Real problem and board regularisation decision 12 marks Pieter Kruger presents the matter as an urgent production recovery problem. Advocate Mbeki’s concern is different: the file does not ask for a clean future approval; it asks for regularisation. Identify and explain the real problem before the board and recommend whether the board should approve, reject, defer, amend or conditionally approve the regularisation of Marula’s involvement. In your solution address the following:  What management says the problem is  what has already happened and the real board problem  why the commercial urgency is real  why the evidence/control weaknesses matter  two urgent corrections before wider mobilisation Page 16 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8  Recommended board stance Question 2: Financial option evaluation 15 marks The financial schedule has already been prepared for the board (refer to 1.3). Using Options A-D and taking into account all the information in the case study, evaluate each option and decide on which option is financially attractive, which option carries the greatest evidence/control weakness, and which option the board can professionally defend. In selecting your final option, consider the following:  what the figures suggest;  what the figures do not capture;  why the highest short-term recovery option may still be unsafe; and  which option best balances recovery, evidence and control. You are not required to perform a full NPV or prepare a new financial model. You must use the provided figures in 1.3 to interpret the options and explain what the figures do, and do not, prove. Question 3: Tax, VAT, diesel and payment consequences 15 marks Amina Patel warns that tax evidence cannot be invented later. You are not required to calculate VAT or diesel rebates. Evaluate whether KAC has enough evidence to support VAT input claims, diesel rebate treatment and supplier payments if Marula continues operating. Address the below in your solution:  VAT input support on Marula invoices;  diesel rebate evidence and mixed activities;  manual weighbridge slips and payment support;  bank verification before payment;  pricing and contract terms that support the payment; and  SARS and audit-trail consequences if evidence is weak. Question 4: Financing and liquidity judgement 12 marks The board must fund the recovery without allowing the funding route to distort its judgement. Evaluate the revolving credit facility, Marula supplier credit and the cash buffer from a liquidity, covenant and professional judgement perspective. Address the below in your solution:  the benefit of each funding option;  the professional risk each option creates;  why supplier credit may compromise judgement; and Page 17 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8  which funding approach is most defensible. You are not required to calculate detailed interest costs. Question 5: Evidence sufficiency and risk transfer 16 marks Marula exists. That is not the same as being control-ready. Assess whether Marula’s appointment is sufficiently evidenced for unrestricted approval. Address the below in your solution:  what evidence is reliable;  what evidence is useful but incomplete;  what evidence is weak or missing;  who carries risk if the board approves too broadly; and  what board action is required. Question 6: AI summary, stakeholder voice and responsible judgement 10 marks The AI-generated summary under 1.10 sounds calm. The evidence underneath it is not. Critically evaluate whether the AI-generated summary is fair enough to support a board decision. Your evaluation must address:  what the AI summary gets right;  what it leaves out or softens;  why the Ga-Moraba community voice matters;  what the board must verify before relying on the summary; and  your overall judgement on relying on polished AI wording in board papers as well as reasoning for the answer. Question 7: Final board decision minute 10 marks Draft a concise board decision minute replacing the AI-generated approval wording. The minute must state:  the decision;  the urgency;  the evidence limitations;  the approval conditions;  who must not be left carrying the risk of the recovery (public-interest accountability); and  the 30-day report-back. Page 18 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 PART C: ANSWER BOOK Question 1: Real problem and board regularisation decision Required element Student response What management says the problem is What has already happened and the real board problem Commercial urgency evidence Evidence/control weakness Two urgent corrections Recommended board stance Question 2: Financial option evaluation Option Financial effect Control/evidence weakness Professional judgement Option A Option B Option C Option D Final financial recommendation: Question 3: Tax, VAT, diesel and payment consequences Issue Case evidence Tax/payment consequence Evidence required VAT input support Diesel rebate evidence Manual weighbridge slips and payment support Bank verification before payment Pricing and contract terms SARS and audit-trail consequences Page 19 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Conclusion: Question 4: Financing and liquidity judgement Funding option Benefit Professional risk Recommendation Revolving credit facility Supplier credit from Marula Cash buffer Conclusion: Question 5: Evidence sufficiency and risk transfer Evidence item Classification Why? Who carries risk? Supplier existence documents Prior work reference Insurance and induction Conflict and bank verification Pricing benchmark Trial loads and manual weighbridge slips Diesel logs and VAT support Community road-safety complaint Board action required: Question 6: AI summary, stakeholder voice and responsible judgement AI wording What it gets right What it leaves out or softens Board verification required Wording 1 Wording 2 How the community voice changes the decision: Page 20 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Overall judgement: is the summary fair enough to support a board decision? Provide a motivation for your answer. Question 7: Final board decision minute Draft minute: Page 21 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Page 22 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 AI-USE AND SOURCE DECLARATION List every AI tool, search engine, grammar tool or other source that shaped your answer. Write 'None' if you used none. Tool or source How you verified it Purpose Prompt or reference against the case PART D: ASSESSMENT RUBRIC Assessment 8 Rubric Question 1: Real problem and board regularisation decision Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Marks) Level 2: Level 3: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Identifies the real problem Accepts the problem as management presents it in the CFO memorandum and does not examine Recognises the pressure management describes but does not explain how the sequence of events before the meeting Identifies, with reference to specific events in the dossier, what the board is actually being asked to approve Clearly explains why the timing of events changes the board’s role, and sets out the choices this leaves the board in 3 what has already happened before the board was asked to decide. changes the nature of the decision. and how this differs from an ordinary future approval. respect of work already performed. Uses urgency evidence Asserts that the matter is urgent Quotes one or two figures from the Selects several relevant financial Shows how the indicators connect 3 Page 23 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Marks) Level 2: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Level 3: Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark without drawing on the dossier. dossier without explaining what they show. and operating indicators from sections: The Red Dust Decision, 1.1 to 1.2 and explains why each makes the matter urgent. as a chain of cause and consequence, so that the board can see how an operating problem flows through to the company’s financial position and external obligations. Uses evidence/control weaknesses States that documentation is incomplete without identifying which evidence is concerned. Identifies one or two specific gaps only. Identifies several specific gaps drawn from across the dossier (for example the supplier file, Internal Audit note and missing evidence schedule), not from a single source. Explains why each gap matters to the board’s ability to defend its decision, distinguishing the different kinds of consequence (operational, legal, financial, tax and social) that a gap may create. 3 Recommends stance and corrections No clear stance, or a stance given without reasons. Takes a broad position, but the corrections proposed are vague or general. Selects one of the five board responses named in the question, justifies it from the case, and names two specific corrections. Justifies the chosen response and any limits placed on it, and prioritises the corrections by explaining why each must be in 3 place before a particular step proceeds. Total 12 Page 24 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Question 2: Financial option evaluation Level 4: Strong professional Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent Level 2: Basic/developing Level 3: Competent pass Maximum Mark (0 Mark) (2 Marks) (3 Marks) judgement (4 Marks) Mark Interprets financial effects Does not use the figures in section 1.3, or misreads them. Repeats figures from section 1.3 but mostly lists them. Reads the schedule correctly to establish which options improve and which worsen the short-term financial position, and ranks the options on financial grounds. Interprets Options A-D comparatively, including the size and direction of each effect and any range or condition attached to a figure, and explains what the figures do and do not prove. 4 Assesses control/evidence weakness Ignores evidence/control risk. Refers to controls in general terms only. Links each option, and particularly the financially strongest option, to specific evidence and control gaps recorded elsewhere in the dossier. Explains how evidence and control weaknesses affect the reliability of each option’s financial result, and why an option’s defensibility may differ from what its figures alone suggest. 4 Integrates financial and professional judgement Chooses purely by highest amount or rejects purely by controls. Gives a simple preference with limited balance. Explains the tradeoff between financial recovery and evidence/control. Reaches a balanced judgement that weighs urgency against control, and openly 4 acknowledges the financial consequence of the options not chosen. Final No Vague Recommends a Recommends a 3 Page 25 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (2 Marks) Level 3: Competent pass (3 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (4 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark recommendation recommendation. recommendation. plausible option with reasons. clearly justified option, supported by its financial effect, the evidence and control conditions it requires, its community and road-safety implications, and whether the board could defend it. Total 15 Question 3: Tax, VAT, diesel and payment consequences Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Level 3: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark VAT input support No VAT discussion. Assumes the input VAT is claimable on the strength of a single fact about the supplier. Explains the documentary and legal requirements that must be met before input VAT may be claimed and applies them to the Marula invoices. Tests the VAT position against the actual state of the supplier file, contractual documents and evidence of services received in the dossier, and explains how the 3 quality of that evidence affects the claim. Diesel rebate evidence No diesel issue. Refers to diesel records in general terms only. Explains why the nature of the activities performed Evaluates the actual condition of the diesel records in the 3 Page 26 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Level 3: Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark matters for diesel rebate treatment, and what must therefore be recorded. dossier against the evidence requirements, and explains the consequences for KAC if the records cannot support the claim. Supplier payment support No payment issue. Mentions payment risk generally. Discusses, using the case facts, how deliveries are measured and how supplier banking details are confirmed. Explains how weaknesses in delivery measurement and bank verification combine to create specific financial, fraud, tax and audittrail risks for KAC. 3 Pricing/contract/tax support file No pricing/contract /tax issue. Notes that documents are incomplete without explaining why this matters. Explains why an agreed pricing basis and contractual terms are needed before the expense is accepted. Explains how the pricing and contractual position affects each later step (approval, payment and tax treatment) and whether the expense can be justified commercially. 3 Overall tax/payment conclusion No conclusion. Generic compliance conclusion not tied to the case. States clearly what evidence must exist before claims are made or Draws a principled conclusion on the relationship between tax treatment and 3 payments released. evidence, and specifies the conditions under which emergency work could continue without compromising tax Page 27 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Level 3: Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark and payment integrity. Total 15 Question 4: Financing and liquidity judgement Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Level 3: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Revolving facility analysis No discussion. Notes only that the facility provides cash. Explains both the benefit of the facility and the cost or risk it creates. Relates the drawdown to KAC’s covenant position and lender relationship as shown in the dossier, and to the conditions under which the board would allow the funds to be used. 3 Supplier credit analysis No discussion. Notes only that supplier credit helps cash flow. Explains the terms offered in section 1.5 and what they cost KAC. Evaluates whether, and how, the terms of the supplier credit could influence the board’s procurement and approval 3 judgement. Cash buffer analysis No discussion. Notes only that using cash avoids borrowing. Explains what the cash buffer is currently intended for and what using it would give up. Explains the knock-on effect of using the buffer on other parts of an operation already 3 Page 28 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (1 Mark) Level 3: Competent pass (2 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (3 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark under pressure, considering the plant as a whole. Funding recommendation No recommendation. Vague funding preference. Recommends a plausible funding route with some reasons. Recommends a funding approach that protects liquidity and covenant position without allowing the funding source to influence the supplier decision, and links the funding to the conditions of the board’s approval. 3 Total 12 Question 5: Evidence sufficiency and risk transfer Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (2 Marks) Level 3: Competent pass (3 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (4 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Distinguishes existence from readiness Treats Marula as simply acceptable or unacceptable. Lists the documents in the supplier file without considering what they can and cannot prove. Explains the difference between evidence that a supplier exists and is in good standing, Assesses each category of document in the supplier file against what the board 4 and evidence that it is ready to perform safely and lawfully. actually needs to know, and explains specifically what the formal documents leave unproven. Assesses Generic reference to Identifies one or two Identifies several Explains the 4 Page 29 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Basic/developing (2 Marks) Level 3: Competent pass (3 Marks) Level 4: Strong professional judgement (4 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark weak/missing evidence missing documents. gaps. specific gaps drawn from across the supplier file, Internal Audit note and missing evidence schedule. consequence of each gap for the different areas for which the board is accountable, rather than simply listing what is missing. Explains risk transfer No risk transfer. Refers to stakeholders in general terms. Identifies KAC and at least one other named party who would bear risk. Explains concretely how specific risks would pass to identified parties inside and outside KAC, and what each party stands to lose. 4 Board action required Generic controls. Recommends obtaining documents without linking them to the decision. Recommends board action that ties any approval to the evidence still outstanding. States what the board should not approve, what it may approve and within what limits, and specifies the conditions, across each area of risk identified, that must be satisfied and who must confirm them. 4 Total 16 Question 6: AI summary, stakeholder voice and responsible judgement Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 3: Strong Level 2: Competent pass (1 Mark) Maximum Mark Mark professional judgement (2 Marks) What AI gets right No engagement Identifies which aspects of Explains what the summary 2 Page 30 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Competent pass (1 Mark) Level 3: Strong professional judgement (2 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark management’s case the captures fairly and assesses OR summary reflects accurately. how far it represents the full position in the dossier. Generic comment about AI. Omissions in wording Generic OR Identifies specific facts from the dossier that the summary omits or understates. Quotes at least two phrases from the summary and explains how the choice of wording softens uncertainty or evidence weakness. 2 Identifies omissions in broad terms. Community voice Ignored OR Explains why the community complaint in section 1.8 is relevant to the board’s decision. Generic stakeholder statement. Shows how the community evidence should change the conditions of the board’s decision, rather than being noted as a stakeholder consideration only. 2 Board treatment of AI None OR States that the summary must be verified against the dossier evidence. Rejects AI in general terms. Sets out what role AI may play in board papers, and specifies what the summary must be corrected to disclose before the board relies on it. 2 Digital judgement None. OR Reasonable scepticism. Mature judgement on how fluent, confident wording can shape a board’s reading of uncertain evidence. 2 Basic warning. Total 10 Question 7: Final board decision minute Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 3: Strong Level 2: Competent pass (1 Mark) Maximum Mark Mark professional judgement (2 Marks) Page 31 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1: Not yet competent (0 Mark) Level 2: Competent pass (1 Mark) Level 3: Strong professional judgement (2 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Clear decision No decision Clear decision with Board-ready decision that 2 conditions. OR states its scope and the period for which it applies. Vague response . Urgency and evidence limits Ignores one side OR Recognises urgency and evidence limits. Records both the urgency and the evidence limitations accurately, in board-minute language. 2 Mentions both vaguely. Key conditions None provided Practical. OR Specific, verifiable conditions covering each area of risk identified in Questions 1 to 6. 2 Generic. Public-interest accountability None provided OR Community and safety considerations included. States the board’s accountability for who bears the consequences of the recovery, naming the parties concerned. 2 Generic stakeholder point. Report-back None provided Practical report-back. OR Generic monitoring. Specific 30-day report-back naming the matters, measures and assurance the board will require in order to review its decision. 2 Total 10 8. Communication rubric Criteria Level 1 (0 Mark) Level 2 (1 Mark) Level 3 (2 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Page 32 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 Criteria Level 1 (0 Mark) Level 2 (1 Mark) Level 3 (2 Marks) Maximum Mark Mark Structure and use of answer template Disorganised; does not follow the task Mostly follows the template. Clear, disciplined use of the template. 2 OR Some structure but uneven. Use of case evidence Generic answer with little case evidence Relevant evidence used. Case evidence is integrated into judgement. 2 OR Limited case evidence. Professional tone Informal, vague or emotional Mostly professional. Board-appropriate and concise. 2 OR Basic but understandable. Critical-thinking flow Lists issues without reasoning Clear movement from evidence to judgement. OR Strong, disciplined movement from evidence to accountable recommendation. 2 Some reasoning but limited integration. Avoids generic / AI-style writing Generic phrases dominate Mostly casespecific. Specific, grounded, human professional writing. 2 OR Some case-specific detail. Total 10 Page 33 CAS3701 | ASSESSMENT 8 © UNISA 2026 Page 34