Risk is inefficiently controlled when the annual cost of the control exceeds the annual loss expectancy (ALE) of the risk, as this means that the organization is spending more on the control than the potential loss that the control is supposed to prevent or reduce. This indicates that the control is not cost-effective or optimal, and that the organization should consider alternative or complementary controls that can lower the cost or increase the benefit of the risk management. Control is ineffective and should be strengthened when the control does not reduce the likelihood or impact of the risk to an acceptable level, regardless of the cost. Risk is efficiently controlled when the annual cost of the control is equal to or less than the annual loss expectancy (ALE) of the risk, as this means that the organization is spending less or equal on the control than the potential loss that the control is supposed to prevent or reduce. Control is weak and should be removed when the control does not provide any benefit or value to the risk management, regardless of the cost. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control - Question205; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 205.

The best way to determine the value of information assets for risk management purposes is to assess the loss impact if the information is inadvertently disclosed, as this reflects the potential damage or harm that the organization may suffer due to a breach of confidentiality, integrity, or availability of the information. The loss impact can be measured in terms of financial, operational, reputational, legal, or regulatory consequences, depending on the nature, sensitivity, and criticality of the information. The loss impact can also help the organization to prioritize the protection and mitigation of the information assets, and to align the risk management strategy with the business objectives and risk appetite.
References:
*ISACA, IT Asset Valuation, Risk Assessment and Control Implementation Model1
*ISACA, Data Classification: What It Is, Why You Should Care and How to Perform It2

The most essential factor for an effective change control environment is the separation of development and production environments. This ensures that changes are tested and verified in a controlled environment before being implemented in the live environment, reducing the risk of errors, failures, and unauthorized modifications. Business management approval of change requests, requirement of an implementation rollback plan, and IT management review of implemented changes are important elements of change control, but they are not as essential as the separation of environments. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.2, page 123.

A control self-assessment (CSA) is a technique that allows managers and work teams directly involved in business units, functions, or processes to participate in assessing the organization's risk management and control processes. The main purpose of conducting a CSA is to gain a better understanding of the control effectiveness in the organization, which means how well the controls are designed, implemented, and operated to achieve the desired outcomes and mitigate the risks. A CSA can help to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the existing controls, as well as the gaps and opportunities for improvement. A CSA can also help to enhance the awareness, ownership, and accountability of the control environment among the managers and staff. The other options are not the main purpose of conducting a CSA, although they may be related or beneficial. Gaining a better understanding of the risk in the organization is a result of conducting a CSA, but it is not the primary goal. The primary goal is to evaluate the controls that address the risks, not the risks themselves. Adjusting the controls prior to an external audit is a possible action that may follow a CSA, but it is not the reason for conducting a CSA. The reason for conducting a CSA is to improve the control effectiveness, not to prepare for an audit. Reducing the dependency on external audits is a potential benefit of conducting a CSA, but it is not the objective of conducting a CSA. The objective of conducting a CSA is to enhance the internal control assurance, not to replace the external audit assurance. References = CRISC Review Manual, pages 153-1541; CRISC Review Questions, Answers & Explanations Manual, page 802

The most important element of an organization's risk register to update following the commissioning of a new financial reporting system is the risk rating of affected financial processes. A risk rating is a measure of the level and nature of the risk exposure, based on the impact and likelihood of the risk events. A risk rating can help to prioritize and respond to the risks, and to monitor and report the risk status. A new financial reporting system may introduce new or different risks, or change the existing risks, that could affect the financial processes of the organization, such as data quality, accuracy, timeliness, compliance, or security. Therefore, the risk rating of affected financial processes should be updated to reflect the current risk situation and to ensure that the risk register is accurate and complete. Key risk indicators (KRIs), the owner of the financial reporting process, and the list of relevant financial controls are not as important as the risk rating of affected financial processes, as they are not directly affected by the commissioning of a new financial reporting system, and they do not measure the risk exposure and impact of the financial processes. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 48.