You keep inserting your interpretation, rather than applying the GAAP language. AABB asserts that the gold exists. GAAP has no interpretation or language that the asset must be verified, or by whom.
Show me the specific language that the gold must be verified. AND YOU CAN"T. YOU interpret. You even go on by stating the verification by a third party. BUT GAAP doesn't say that, and further, who might that third party be? GAAP doesn't detail that, either.
You can cry foul about my logic and critical 5thinking until the cows come home. BUT what you fcan't do is provide the precise language that details the intent of GAAP and your beliefs and interpretations.
AND you cannot adequately address this issue, without extending YOUR INTERPRETATION/ It is just that simple.
As a comparable example, a contract must include the details and language within the document. If it fails, then there is existing potential confusion and interpretation and misinterpretation. And you minterpreting as you see fit, does not carry any weight. A court of law must officiate and adjudicate what were the intentions of the parties.
In the same manner, a court of law must adjudicate the intentions of the GAAP rules, whether, OR NOT, they were intended to require verification of the asset, and ifr a third party can be authorized to witness/ verify the asset.
It is your logic that is failing to meet the lack of sufficient detail of the GAAP rules.
Market Data 
Markets 
