The most important activity when conducting a post-implementation review as part of the system development life cycle (SDLC) is to verify that the project objectives are met. The project objectives are the specific and measurable outcomes that the project aims to achieve. By verifying that the project objectives are met, the post-implementation review can evaluate the success and value of the project, and identify the lessons learned and best practices for future projects. Identifying project cost overruns, leveraging an independent review team, and reviewing the project initiation risk matrix are other possible activities, but they are not as important as verifying that the project objectives are met. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 4; CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, page 153.

Determining the impact of the missing threat is the best course of action for a peer review of a risk assessment, as it helps to assess the potential consequences and severity of the threat on the information system and the business objectives. Determining the impact of the missing threat is a process of estimating and quantifying the possible harm or loss that could result from the occurrence of the threat event, such as data breach, system failure, or service disruption. Determining the impact of the missing threat can help to:
* Identify and prioritize the critical assets, processes, and functions that could be affected by the threat
* Evaluate and measure the extent and magnitude of the damage or disruption caused by the threat
* Analyze and compare the current and residual risk levels and control effectiveness
* Develop and implement appropriate risk response and mitigation strategies and actions
* Communicate and report the risk exposure and status to the relevant stakeholders Determining the impact of the missing threat is an essential step to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the risk assessment and to improve the quality and reliability of the risk management and control processes.
The other options are not the best courses of action for a peer review of a risk assessment. Asking the business to make a budget request to remediate the problem is a possible action to allocate the resources and costs for the risk mitigation, but it does not address the root cause or the severity of the problem. Building a business case to remediate the fix is a possible action to justify and support the risk mitigation, but it does not provide a clear and comprehensive analysis of the problem. Researching the types of attacks the threat can present is a possible action to understand and anticipate the threat scenarios and techniques, but it does not evaluate the actual or potential impact of the threat. References = Risk Assessment and Analysis Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Peer Review Assessment Framework

A key risk indicator (KRI) is a metric that measures the level of risk exposure or the likelihood of a risk event1. A KRI threshold is a predefined value or range that triggers an alert or action when the KRI reaches or exceeds it2. A data leakage incident is an unauthorized or accidental exposure of sensitive or confidential data to external parties3.
When a KRI threshold reaches the alert level, indicating that data leakage incidents are highly probable, the risk practitioner's first course of action should be to review the incident handling procedures. Incident handling procedures are the plans and actions to be taken in the event of a data breach or security incident, such as data leakage4. Reviewing the incident handling procedures can help the risk practitioner to:
* Verify the roles and responsibilities of the incident response team and other stakeholders
* Confirm the communication and escalation channels and protocols
* Identify the tools and resources available for incident detection, containment, analysis, eradication, recovery, and reporting
* Evaluate the readiness and preparedness of the organization to respond to a data leakage incident
* Update or revise the procedures as needed to reflect the current situation and risk level Reviewing the incident handling procedures can help the risk practitioner to ensure that the organization can respond to a data leakage incident effectively and efficiently, minimizing the potential or expected impact on the organization's operations, reputation, or objectives.
The other options are not the first course of action for the risk practitioner, although they may be relevant or necessary at later stages of the risk management process. Updating the KRI threshold, which means adjusting the value or range that triggers an alert or action, may be appropriate if the KRI threshold is too high or too low, but it does not address the imminent risk of data leakage or the response plan. Recommending additional controls, which means suggesting new or improved measures to prevent, detect, or mitigate data leakage, may be useful for reducing the risk exposure or impact, but it does not ensure that the organization is ready or capable to handle a data leakage incident. Performing a root cause analysis, which means finding and identifying the underlying factors that contributed to the risk event, may be helpful for learning from the incident and improving the risk management strategy, but it is usually done after the incident has occurred and resolved, not before.
References = Key Risk Indicators: Definition, Examples, and Best Practices, KRI Framework for Operational Risk Management | Workiva, What is Data Leakage? Definition, Causes, and Prevention, Incident Response Planning: Best Practices for Businesses

A preventive control is a type of control that aims to avoid or reduce the occurrence of an undesirable event or risk. A preventive control can be implemented through technical, administrative, or physical means. A new policy that forbids copying of data onto removable media is an example of a preventive control, because it prevents unauthorized data exfiltration or leakage through removable devices, such as flash drives or external hard disk drives. A preventive control is different from the other types of controls, as explained below:
* A detective control is a type of control that aims to discover or identify the occurrence of an undesirable event or risk. A detective control can be implemented through monitoring, auditing, or reporting activities. An example of a detective control is a log analysis tool that detects any unauthorized access or modification of data on a system.
* A directive control is a type of control that aims to guide or instruct the behavior or actions of individuals or groups. A directive control can be implemented through policies, procedures, standards, or rules. An example of a directive control is a training program that teaches employees how to handle sensitive data securely and appropriately.
* A deterrent control is a type of control that aims to discourage or dissuade individuals or groups from performing an undesirable event or risk. A deterrent control can be implemented through sanctions, penalties, or consequences. An example of a deterrent control is a warning message that informs users of the legal implications of copying data onto removable media without authorization. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 38.

The best way to resolve the concern where a control process has been implemented in response to a new regulatory requirement, but has significantly reduced productivity, is to escalate the issue to senior management. Senior management is the highest level of authority and responsibility in the organization, and they are responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization. Senior management should also oversee the risk management process, and ensure that the controls are aligned with the organization's goals and values. Escalating the issue to senior management can help to find a balance between complying with the regulatory requirement and maintaining the productivity of the organization. The other options are not as effective or desirable as escalating the issue to senior management, because they either ignore the problem, violate the regulation, or compromise the control.