Kathryn,
You pose a very interesting question. It would all depend on the nature of the "statement of fact" whether or not it could be accepted as audit evidence. If the statement could readily be accepted by all reasonable men, then on the face of the statement it would be acceptable. For instance, if the auditee told me that, "observed from earth the sky appears blue", envoking the reasonable man rule, I would be inclinded to believe them based on my own observations and knowledge of the physical world. Let me put it this way. If an auditee tells me that they conduct a management review, with out hesitation, I will check the affirmitive block on an ISO 9001:2000 Audit Checklist. Because, I will accept their "statement of fact" that they do, in deed, conduct a management review. At that point in an audit I am not in a position to disput this "satement of fact", untill I determine the level of their understanding and their level of implementation for this requriement. However, having accepted this "statement of fact" based at this point on the auditees level of understanding it is my duty as an auditor to verify that the management review is conducted is such a manner as to address all of the Standard's requirments (e.g., is it performed at planned intervals, are all review inputs and outputs included, etc.).
Regarding, "statements of facts" within the context of audit evidence, I would refer you to;
ISO 9000:2005, Clause 3.9.4 Audit Evidence, states:
"records (3.7.6), statements of fact or other information (3.7.1) which are relevant to the audit criteria (3.9.3) and verifiable."
I hope this information has been helpful. If you need additional clarification of my postion on audit evidence swing by my desk and we can discuss this at length.
Doyle