Which option best describes evaluation in auditing?

The option that best describes evaluation in auditing is an objective procedure. Evaluation in auditing involves systematically assessing evidence, processes, or controls to determine their effectiveness or compliance with established criteria, such as those laid out in ISO/IEC 27001. This objective approach is vital for ensuring that findings are based on facts and evidence, allowing auditors to provide impartial conclusions about the organization's information security management system.

An objective procedure is essential because it mitigates personal biases and opinions, fostering reliability in the audit process. By focusing on measurable results rather than subjective interpretations, auditors can draw valid conclusions that truly reflect the organization's compliance status or operational effectiveness.

In contrast, other options imply a less structured or impartial approach. The assessment of nonconformity, while critical to the audit process, is only one part of the overall evaluation and doesn't encompass the full definition of evaluation itself. A subjective procedure indicates reliance on personal judgment, which contradicts the need for impartiality in auditing. Lastly, while analytical procedures are a part of auditing techniques, they specifically refer to evaluating financial data through comparisons rather than the broader evaluation process needed in a full audit context.