Qualitative measures are methods of expressing risk levels using descriptive terms, such as high, medium, or low, based on subjective criteria, such as likelihood, impact, or severity. Qualitative measures are often used to identify and prioritize risks, and to communicate risk information to stakeholders1.
Residual risk is the level of risk that remains after the risk response has been implemented. Residual risk reflects the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk response, and the need for further action or monitoring2.
Emerging threats are new or evolving sources or causes of risk that have the potential to adversely affect the organization's objectives, assets, or operations. Emerging threats are oftencharacterized by uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity, and may require innovative or adaptive risk responses3.
The best reason to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats is that qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment. Expert judgment is the opinion or advice of a person or a group of people who have specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a particular domain or field. Expert judgment can help to:
Provide insights and perspectives on the nature and characteristics of the emerging threats, and their possible causes and consequences Assess the likelihood and impact of the emerging threats, and their interactions and dependencies with other risks Evaluate the suitability and effectiveness of the risk responses, and their alignment with the organization's risk appetite and tolerance Identify and recommend the best practices and lessons learned for managing the emerging threats, and for improving the risk management process45 Qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment than quantitative measures, which are methods of expressing risk levels using numerical or measurable values, such as percentages, probabilities, or monetary amounts. Quantitative measures are often used to estimate and analyze risks, and to support risk decision making1. However, quantitative measures may not be suitable or feasible for expressing residual risk levels related to emerging threats, because:
Quantitative measures require reliable and sufficient data and information, which may not be available or accessible for the emerging threats Quantitative measures rely on mathematical models and techniques, which may not be able to capture or reflect the complexity and uncertainty of the emerging threats Quantitative measures may create a false sense of precision or accuracy, which may not be justified or warranted for the emerging threats Quantitative measures may be influenced or manipulated by biases or assumptions, which may not be valid or appropriate for the emerging threats67 Therefore, qualitative measures are better able to incorporate expert judgment, which can enhance the understanding and management of the residual risk levels related to emerging threats.
The other options are not the best reasons to use qualitative measures to express residual risk levels related to emerging threats, but rather some of the advantages or disadvantages of qualitative measures. Qualitative measures require less ongoing monitoring than quantitative measures, because they are simpler and easier to apply and update. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can eliminate or reduce the need for monitoring, which is an essential part of the risk management process. Qualitative measures are better aligned to regulatory requirements than quantitative measures, because they are more consistent and comparable across different domains and contexts. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can satisfy or comply with all the regulatory requirements, which may vary depending on theindustry or sector. Qualitative measures are easier to update than quantitative measures, because they do not depend on complex calculations or formulas. However, this does not mean that qualitative measures can always reflect the current or accurate risk levels, which may change over time or due to external factors. References = Qualitative Risk Analysis vs. Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA Residual Risk - ISACA Emerging Threats - ISACA Expert Judgment - ISACA Expert Judgment in Project Management: Narrowing the Theory-Practice Gap Quantitative Risk Analysis - ISACA Quantitative Risk Analysis: A Critical Review
[CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition]

According to the CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), the next course of action when there is a gap between the acceptable downtime and the actual recovery time of an application is to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of alternatives available to reduce the gap. The cost-benefit analysis should compare the costs of implementing different risk response options, such as avoidance, mitigation, transfer or acceptance, with the benefits of reducing the impact and likelihood of the risk. The cost-benefit analysis should also consider the alignment of the risk response options with the enterprise's risk appetite, business objectives and strategy. The cost-benefit analysis should help the application owner and the risk owner to select the most appropriate risk response option that optimizes the value of the application and minimizes the residual risk.
References = CRISC Review Manual (Digital Version), Chapter 3: IT Risk Response, Section 3.2: Risk Response Process, pp. 162-1631

The control owner is the person who has the authority to approve an exception to a control. A control is a policy, procedure, or technical measure that is implemented to prevent or mitigate a risk. A control owner is responsible for the design, implementation, operation, and maintenance of the control, as well as for monitoring and reporting its performance and effectiveness. A control owner is also accountable for the approval of any changes or exceptions to the control, based on the risk assessment and business justification.
An information security manager, a risk owner, and a risk manager are not the best choices, as they do not have the same level of authority, responsibility, and knowledge as the control owner in relation to the control. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 35.

Key risk indicators are designed to provide early warnings about increasing risk exposure, enabling timely risk mitigation efforts. This supports proactive risk management, as outlined in the Risk Monitoring and Reporting domain of CRISC.

A risk register is the primary tool for communicating progress: it consolidates risk scenarios, mitigation plans, current status, and residual risk in a structured format. Senior management relies on it to make informed decisions.