The finding that should be of greatest concern to senior management is that response decisions were made without consulting the appropriate authority. This is because response decisions are critical actions that can affect the outcome and impact of a security incident, and they should be made by the designated authority who has the responsibility and accountability for the incident response. According to CISA, the Department of Justice, through the FBI and the NCIJTF, is the lead agency for threat response during a significant incident, with DHS's investigative agencies-the Secret Service and ICE/HSI - playing a crucial role in criminal investigations1. If response decisions are made without consulting the appropriate authority, it may result in:
* Legal or regulatory violations: The response actions may not comply with the applicable laws or regulations, such as data breach notification, evidence preservation, or privacy protection. This may expose the organization to legal or regulatory penalties, lawsuits, or reputational damage.
* Ineffective or counterproductive actions: The response actions may not be aligned with the incident response plan, best practices, or standard operating procedures. This may cause more harm than good, such as escalating the incident, destroying evidence, or compromising recovery efforts.
* Lack of coordination and communication: The response actions may not be coordinated or communicated with the relevant stakeholders, such as senior management, legal counsel, public relations, or external partners. This may lead to confusion, inconsistency, or mistrust among the parties involved in the incident response.
Therefore, senior management should be most concerned about the finding that response decisions were made without consulting the appropriate authority, and they should take corrective actions to prevent this from happening again in the future. References: Cybersecurity Incident Response | CISA1

IT key risk indicators (KRIs) are metrics that measure the likelihood and impact of IT-related risks on the enterprise's objectives and goals. Therefore, the first step in determining appropriate IT KRIs is to identify the IT-related risks that are relevant and significant for the enterprise. IT controls, IT threats and IT objectives are also important factors in developing IT KRIs, but they are not the first step. IT controls are the measures that mitigate or reduce IT risks, IT threats are the sources of potential harm or loss to IT assets or processes, and IT objectives are the desired outcomes or results of IT activities that support the enterprise's strategy and goals. References := ISACA, CGEIT Review Manual, 7th Edition, 2019, p. 90-91; Integrating KRIs and KPIs for Effective Technology Risk Management; Performance Measurement Metrics for IT Governance; State and Impact of Governance of Enterprise IT in Organizations: Key Findings of an International Study.

A defined enterprise architecture (EA) is a key requirement of a governance framework to facilitate the alignment of IT and business strategies. An EA is a blueprint that describes the current and future state of the organization's structure, processes, information, and technology, as well as the principles and standards that guide their design and evolution. An EA helps to align IT and business strategies by providing a common vision, language, and framework for the organization, and by ensuring that the IT investments and initiatives support the business goals and objectives. An EA also helps to optimize the performance, efficiency, and effectiveness of the IT function and its services, and to manage the risks and changes associated with IT. An EA can be developed and maintained using various methodologies and frameworks, such as TOGAF, Zachman, or FEAF. References: CGEIT Exam Content Outline | ISACA1, CGEIT Review Manual (Digital Version), What is enterprise architecture? A framework for transformation | CIO2, Enterprise Architecture:
Definition, Benefits & Examples3

Quality of services is the degree to which the IT services meet the expectations and requirements of the customers and stakeholders. Quality of services is usually defined and measured by the service level agreements (SLAs), which are contracts that specify the service level objectives, metrics, targets, and responsibilities of both parties. If the SLAs are not clearly defined in all cases, the business faces the greatest risk of not being able to enforce the quality of services from the third-party providers. This can lead to poor performance, customer dissatisfaction, reputational damage, legal disputes, and financial losses for the business. Therefore, it is essential to have clear and comprehensive SLAs for all IT outsourcing contracts. References: CGEIT Exam Content Outline | ISACA1, CGEIT Review Manual (Digital Version), Outsourcing IT: What to Expect from Your SLAs | AxiaTP2, What is an SLA? Best practices for service-level agreements | CIO1

The most likely root cause in this scenario is that thebusiness continuity plan (BCP) was not recently tested.A plan may exist and be theoretically sound, but without testing, organizations cannot assess whether recovery procedures work effectively under real conditions.
Testing ensures that time estimates are realistic, personnel understand their roles, and systems perform as expected. A lack of testing results in delays, confusion, and extended recovery times-even with escalation processes functioning well.
Reference:
CGEIT Review Manual: Domain 4 - Risk Optimization, Continuity Management COBIT 2019: DSS04 (Manage Continuity).