According to the CRISC Review Manual1, threat impact analysis is the process of estimating and evaluating the potential effects of a threat event on the organization's objectives, processes, resources, and risks. Threat impact analysis helps to quantify and qualify the severity and likelihood of the threat, and to identify the possible consequences and implications for the organization. Communicating the results of the threat impact analysis is the most effective way to improve stakeholders' understanding of the effect of a potential threat, as it helps to inform and educate the stakeholders about the nature and magnitude of the threat, and to solicit their feedback and input for the risk response. Communicating the results of the threat impact analysis also helps to align the stakeholder expectations and preferences, and to facilitate risk-based decision making and action planning. References = CRISC Review Manual1, page 208.

An IT risk threat analysis is best used to establish risk scenarios. A risk scenario is a description of a possible event or situation that may affect the achievement of the IT objectives. A risk scenario consists of three elements: a threat, a vulnerability, and an impact. A threat is a potential cause of an unwanted incident. A vulnerability is a weakness or flaw that can be exploited by a threat. An impact is the consequence or effect of the incident on the IT objectives. An IT risk threat analysis is a technique that identifies and evaluates the threats that may pose a risk to the IT assets and processes. An IT risk threat analysis can help to establish risk scenarios by providing the information and context for the threat element of the risk scenario. The other options are not as directly related to an IT risk threat analysis, as they are related to the outcomes, measures, or responsibilities of the IT risk management process, not the inputs or sources of the IT risk scenarios. References = Risk and Information Systems Control Study Manual, Chapter 1: IT Risk Identification, Section 1.3: IT Risk Scenarios, page 23.

A cost-benefit analysis is the best method to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls, as it helps to compare and evaluate the costs and benefits of the investment and to determine its feasibility and profitability. A cost-benefit analysis is a process of identifying, measuring, and comparing the expected costs and benefits of a project or a decision, such asinvesting in automated controls. A cost-benefit analysis can help to justify an investment in automated controls by providing the following benefits:
It enables a data-driven and evidence-based approach to decision making, rather than relying on subjective or qualitative judgments.
It facilitates a consistent and standardized way of assessing and communicating the value and impact of the investment across the organization and to the external stakeholders.
It supports the alignment of the investment with the organizational strategy and objectives, and helps to evaluate the achievement of the desired outcomes.
It helps to identify and prioritize the opportunities and challenges of the investment, and to develop and implement appropriate strategies and actions to address them.
It provides feedback and learning opportunities for the investment and its outcomes, and helps to foster a culture of continuous improvement and innovation.
The other options are not the best methods to assist in justifying an investment in automated controls.
Alignment of investment with risk appetite is an important aspect of risk management, but it does not directly address the costs and benefits of the investment. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Alignment of investment with risk appetite helps to ensure that the investment is consistent with the organizational risk tolerance and preferences,and does not expose the organization to excessive or unacceptable risk. Elimination of compensating controls is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Compensating controls are alternative or additional controls that are implemented to mitigate the risk when the primary or preferred controls are not feasible or effective. Elimination of compensating controls can help to reduce the complexity and costs of the control environment, and to improve the efficiency and reliability of the controls.
Reduction in personnel costs is a possible benefit of investing in automated controls, but it is not a method to justify the investment. Personnel costs are the expenses related to the staff and employees involved in the processes or functions that are automated. Reduction in personnel costs can help to increase the profitability and productivity of the organization, and to allocate the resources more effectively and efficiently. References = Cost Benefit Analysis: An Expert Guide | Smartsheet, IT Risk Resources | ISACA, Automation - Efficiency, Cost-Savings, Robotics | Britannica

The best evidence of an effective risk treatment plan is that the risk tolerance threshold is above the asset residual risk, because this means that the risk treatment plan has reduced the risk to a level that is acceptable to the enterprise. The risk tolerance threshold is the maximum amount of risk that the enterprise is willing to accept for a given asset or process. The asset residual risk is the remaining risk after applying the risk treatment plan. The risk treatment plan is effective if the asset residual risk is lower than or equal to the risk tolerance threshold. The other options are not the best evidence, although they may also be indicators of an effective risk treatment plan. The inherent risk being below the asset residual risk, the remediation cost being below the asset business value, and the remediation being completed within the asset recovery time objective (RTO) are examples of desirable or expected outcomes of the risk treatment plan, but they do not directly measure the effectiveness of the risk treatment plan. References = CRISC: Certified in Risk & Information Systems Control Sample Questions

Risk likelihood is most likely to be reassessed as a result of implementing a machine learning-based solution to monitor IT usage and analyze user behavior in an effort to detect internal fraud, as it may change the probability of fraud occurrence or detection, and affect the risk assessment and response. Risk culture, risk appetite, and risk capacity are not the most likely to be reassessed, as they are more stable and strategic aspects of risk management, and are not directly influenced by the implementation of a specific solution. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, page 108.