The most reliable evidence of a control's effectiveness is a system-generated testing report. A system-generated testing report is a document that shows the results of automated tests performed by the system to verify that the control is functioning as intended and producing the expected outcomes. A system-generated testing report is reliable, because it is objective, consistent, accurate, and timely, and because it can provide a high level of assurance and confidence in the control's effectiveness. The other options are not as reliable as a system-generated testing report, although they may provide some evidence of the control's effectiveness. A risk and control self-assessment, senior management's attestation, and a detailed process walk-through are all examples of manual or subjective evidence, which may be prone to errors, biases, or inconsistencies, and which may provide a lower level of assurance and confidence in the control's effectiveness. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 3, Section 3.4.1, page 3-32.

The most helpful source in providing an overview of an organization's risk management program is the risk management framework. The risk management framework is a set of components that provide the foundations and organizational arrangements for designing, implementing, monitoring, reviewing, and continually improving risk management throughout the organization. The framework includes the risk management principles, policies, processes, procedures, roles, responsibilities, and resources that enable the organization to manage risk effectively. Risk management treatment plan, risk assessment results, and risk register are other sources that may provide some information about the risk management program, but they are not as comprehensive as the risk management framework. References = ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 12; CRISC Review Manual,
6th Edition, page 215.

The policy has not been approved by the organization's board should be of most concern, as it indicates a lack of governance and oversight for the organization's cybersecurity posture. The board is ultimately responsible for setting the strategic direction, objectives, and risk appetite of the organization, and for ensuring that the cybersecurity policy aligns with them. Without the board's approval, the policy may not reflect the organization's vision, mission, values, and culture, and may not be communicated, implemented, or enforced effectively. The board's approval also demonstrates the commitment and support of the senior management for the cybersecurity program, and enhances the accountability and responsibility of the stakeholders involved.
References:
*ISACA, Essential Functions of a Cybersecurity Program1
*ISACA, Cybersecurity: Based on the NIST Cybersecurity Framework2

Reduced ability to evaluate key risk indicators (KRIs) will have the greatest impact on the ability to monitor risk when an information system for a key business operation is moved from an in-house application to a Software as a Service (SaaS) vendor, as it may limit the visibility and control over the risk exposure and performance of the system. KRIs are metrics that measure the level of risk exposure and the effectiveness of risk response strategies, and they should be aligned with the enterprise's risk appetite and objectives. When the system is moved to a SaaS vendor, the enterprise may lose access to the data and processes that are used to calculate and report the KRIs, or the KRIs may become irrelevant or inconsistent with the vendor's environment and standards. This may impair the ability to monitor risk and to take timely and appropriate actions to manage risk. Reduced access to internal audit reports, dependency on the vendor's key performance indicators (KPIs), and dependency on service level agreements (SLAs) are not the greatest impacts on the ability to monitor risk, as they do not affect the measurement and reporting of the risk status and performance, but rather the assurance and evaluation of the system quality and reliability. References = CRISC Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control - Question221; ISACA Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control (CRISC) Certification Exam Question and Answers, question 221.

The most important thing for a risk practitioner to ensure once a risk action plan has been completed is that the risk owner has validated the outcomes, as this means that the risk owner has confirmed that the risk response has been implemented and that the risk level has been reduced to an acceptable level. The risk owner is the person or entity with the authority and responsibility to manage a particular risk, and they should evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the risk action plan, and report any issues or changes. The risk action plan is a document that outlines the specific actions, resources, responsibilities, and timelines for implementing a risk response. The other options are not the most important things for a risk practitioner to ensure once a risk action plan has been completed, although they may be useful or necessary steps. Updating the risk register is a good practice, but it should be done after the risk owner has validated the outcomes and with the consent of the risk owner. Mapping the control objectives to the risk objectives is a part of the risk response design, but it does not measure the actual achievement of the risk objectives. Achieving the requirements is a desired result, but it does not guarantee that the risk owner has validated the outcomes or that the risk level has been reduced to an acceptable level. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 4: Risk Response, page 146.