We examine how audit clients' persuasion tactics in limited distribution (non-public) assurance reports influence end-user decisions. Auditees can persuade end-users by formally discussing auditor-identified issues disclosed in certain assurance reports and, due to the limited audience, informally follow-up with end-users. Using the Elaboration Likelihood Model, we predict the type of formal persuasion used by a service provider in an attestation report (contend or concede), and its consistency with informal follow-up persuasive appeals to management (again, contend or concede), will influence end-users' judgments. In an experiment, only when the service provider first contends the auditor's findings does a follow-up concession (rather than contention) result in more favorable managers' perceptions of the provider's ability to deliver on the contracted services. Persuasion tactics impact judgments by influencing managers' processing of risk factors and their trust in the service. These findings provide insight into how multiple persuasion tactics impact users' decisions during compliance audits.