A RACI chart is a matrix that defines the roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders in relation to the IT risk management process. RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed. A RACI chart would be most helpful when communicating roles associated with the IT risk management process, as it clarifies who is responsible for performing the tasks, who is accountable for the outcomes, who is consulted for input and feedback, and who is informed of the progress and results. A RACI chart can help to avoid confusion, duplication, and conflict among the stakeholders, and to ensure that the IT risk management process is executed effectively and efficiently. A skills matrix, job descriptions, and an organizational chart are not as helpful as a RACI chart, as they do not specify the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in relation to the IT risk management process, and may not reflect the actual involvement and contribution of the stakeholders. References = CRISC Review Manual, 6th Edition, ISACA, 2015, page 35.

The risk practitioner should verify the cost-benefit of the new controls being implemented to ensure that they are aligned with the enterprise's risk appetite and strategy, and that they provide value to the business. The other options are not as important as verifying the cost-benefit of the new controls, because:
* Option A: Updating the risk register is a good practice, but it does not provide assurance that the new controls are effective and efficient.
* Option B: Ensuring risk monitoring for the project is initiated is also a good practice, but it is not as urgent as verifying the cost-benefit of the new controls, which should be done before the project is closed.
* Option C: Conducting and documenting a BIA is not relevant to the scenario, as the project is already completed and the new controls are implemented. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, 7th Edition, ISACA, 2020, p. 184.

The performance of a client-facing application is the measure of how well the application meets the expectations and requirements of the clients who use it. The performance of a client-facing application can be affected by various factors, such as functionality, usability, reliability, availability, security, and scalability.
Continuously monitoring the performance of a client-facing application is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting on the performance data and metrics of the application over time. Continuously monitoring the performance of a client-facing application can help identify and resolve issues, improve quality, optimize resources, and enhance client satisfaction. The most important thing to ensure when continuously monitoring the performance of a client-facing application is that the objectives are confirmed with the business owner.
The business owner is the person or entity who has the authority and responsibility for the business value and outcomes of the application. The business owner defines the objectives, goals, and requirements of the application, and sets the performance criteria and targets. Confirming the objectives with the business owner can help ensure that the performance monitoring is aligned with the business needs and expectations, and that the performance data and metrics are relevant, accurate, and meaningful. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting, Section 4.3:
Continuous Monitoring, p. 203-205.

The average gap between actual and agreed response times is the best measure of the efficiency of an incident response process, as it indicates how well the process meets the service level agreements (SLAs) and the expectations of the stakeholders. A smaller gap means that the process is more efficient and effective in resolving incidents within the agreed time frame. The other options are not the best measures of the efficiency of an incident response process, as they do not directly reflect the performance of the process against the SLAs. The number of incidents escalated to management may indicate the complexity or severity of the incidents, but not the efficiency of the process. The average time between changes and updating of escalation matrix may indicate the agility or flexibility of the process, but not the efficiency of the process. The number of incidents lacking responses may indicate the capacity or availability of the process, but not the efficiency of the process. References = Top 5 Incident Response Metrics with Real-World Examples & Impact; Mastering Incident Response: Best Practices for Effective Handling; The Five Steps of Incident Response

According to the ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control study guide and handbook, the most comprehensive approach to capture the risk scenario of collecting and storing credit card information is event tree analysis (ETA). ETA is a forward, top-down, logical modeling technique that explores the responses and outcomes of a single initiating event, such as a data breach or a cyberattack. ETA can help to identify all possible consequences of the scenario, such as financial losses, reputational damages, legal liabilities, regulatory penalties, and customer dissatisfaction. ETA can also help to assess the probabilities of the outcomes and the effectiveness of the controls and mitigation strategies12
1: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Study Guide, 4th Edition, page 33 2: ISACA Risk and Information Systems Control Handbook, 1st Edition, page 25