1.04 Revenue by product: the 2024 column is reclassified for [product line] consumables but the 2023 column is not, and the amount moved is not given
UK Company A · a UK-listed medical technology group · Presentation point
In brief
The 2025 revenue-by-product table moves [product line] consumables revenue from [business unit] to [product] and [business unit] for 2024: [business unit] rises from the published [amount] to [amount] and [business unit] falls from [amount] to [amount]. The 2023 column in the same table still shows the published, unreclassified figures ([amounts]), and the footnote does not say so. The amount moved ([amount]) and the reason are not stated, and [business unit] is unchanged at [amount], so any amount moved into it is below [amount].
The evidence, as filed
Screenshot withheld to protect the company’s identity: Annual Report 2025, page 219; Annual Report 2024, page 201. Their wording or layout could lead back to the company even with names and figures masked; the evidence list below records what each page shows.
What the report shows, and what the rule requires
| What the annual report shows | What the rule requires |
|---|---|
| What the annual report shows 2024 column: [business unit] [n] (published [n]), [business unit] [n] (published [n]), [business unit] [n] (published [n]). 2023 column: [business unit] [n] and [business unit] [n], the same as the 2024 report. Footnote on the 2024 column only; no amount or reason. | What the rule requires All comparative columns on the same basis (or a statement that the 2023 reclassification is impracticable), with the amount reclassified for each line and the reason for the change, as IAS 1.41 requires when the classification of items changes. |
What we checked: Revenue by product table in both reports; the footnote; the [business unit] business review footnote; the underlying growth reconciliations
The rule
IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements, paragraph 41
Version relied on: UK-adopted international accounting standards (UK Endorsement Board), as in force for financial years beginning in or after January 2025
When presentation or classification changes, the comparatives must be reclassified (unless impracticable), with disclosure of what was reclassified, how much and why.
Why it applies here: the table presents two comparative years on different bases with no label, so the [n]-to-2024 movement in [business unit] and [business unit] is distorted by the reclassification; and any amount moved into [business unit] is below [amount], since its 2024 figure stays at [n].
Why it matters
Readers comparing 2023 with 2024 product revenue in the same table see a [amount] swing between [business unit] and [business unit] that is a reclassification, not trading. Group, segment and business-unit totals are unaffected.
Exposure
A presentation inconsistency in a note; no effect on reported revenue, profit or segment totals.
Our workings
the 2025 table footnotes the 2024 column '[product line] [wording masked] [business unit] to [product] and [business unit]'. Against the 2024 report as published, [business unit] for 2024 moves from [n] to [n] and [business unit] from [n] to [n]; [business unit] stays at [n]. The 2023 column carries [n] for [business unit] and [n] for [business unit], exactly as published in the 2024 report, so [product line] consumables remain in [business unit] for 2023.
[n] - [n] = [n] moved into [business unit]; [n] - [n] = -30 out of [business unit].
Business-unit revenue and group revenue are unaffected.
| Line | 2024 as published | 2024 in 2025 report | Difference | 2023 in both reports |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| [business unit] | [n] | [n] | [n] - [n] = [n] | [n] |
| [business unit] | [n] | [n] | [n] - [n] = -30 | [n] |
| [business unit] | [n] | [n] | [n] - [n] = 0 | [n] |
Management’s best defence, and our reply
The company may say IAS 1 requires only one comparative year, so the 2023 column is additional information presented mainly for its US [overseas annual filing], and that the reclassification moves revenue within one business unit without changing any segment or group total. It may also say the amount is small against group revenue. However, the 2023 column is printed in the audited note under the same headings, IAS 1.38C requires additional comparative information to be prepared under IFRS, and the table as printed mixes two bases without saying so; the amount and reason that IAS 1.41 asks for are a single sentence.
The fix
- Reclassify the 2023 column (or state that it is impracticable) and expand the footnote: '[product line] consumables revenue of [amount] (2023: $Xm) has been reclassified from [business unit] to [business unit] to align with how the business is managed.'
Evidence relied on
| # | What it shows | Type | Where |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2025 report: [business unit] 2024 = [n], 2023 = [n] | Document | Annual Report 2025, page 219 |
| 2 | 2025 report: [business unit] 2024 = [n], 2023 = [n] | Document | Annual Report 2025, page 219 |
| 3 | [business unit] 2024 unchanged at [n] | Document | Annual Report 2025, page 219 |
| 4 | Footnote attached to the 2024 column only; no amount or reason | Document | Annual Report 2025, page 219 |
| 5 | 2024 report as published: [business unit] 2024 = [n], 2023 = [n] | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 201 |
| 6 | 2024 report as published: [business unit] 2024 = [n], 2023 = [n] | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 201 |
| 7 | 2024 report as published: [business unit] 2024 = [n], 2023 = [n] | Document | Annual Report 2024, page 201 |
Absence check
- Document
- Annual Report 2025
- Where it would appear
- [product line] consumables revenue has been reclassified
- What is missing
- The amount reclassified, the reason for the reclassification, and the 2023 reclassification (or a statement that it is impracticable)
- Pages looked at
- p.218-219 (Note 2.1), p.39-42 ([business unit] review), p.287-288 (underlying growth reconciliations)
- Result
- '[product line] consumables' hits only p.40 ([business unit] review footnote, same wording) and p.219 (this footnote); 'reclassified' also hits p.211 (OCI headings) and [n] (hedge reserve table), and 'reclassification' hits p.22 (private placement notes moved to current liabilities), all unrelated; '[business unit]' hits the product tables and growth reconciliations on p.39-42, 218-219, 287-288 and [n], none of which gives the amount or reason.
Prepared by Pramanex from the company’s published annual reports, without the company’s involvement, to show how an annual report review reads. The company is not named, and nothing on this page is a statement about any identifiable company. Observations are not an audit, review or other assurance engagement, and not legal advice. A regulator-style question is a question, not a conclusion.
Want this on your own annual report, before it is published?
Start with three free findings on your latest published annual report, or talk to us about a fixed-fee pre-publication review.
Your annual report will be in draft before the year-end audit.
Have it read before it is published.
Under NDA, with our reviewer on your insider list under UK MAR.