Within the ISACA Advanced in AI Risk framework, governance decisions should align AI use with policy, accountability, stakeholder expectations, risk appetite, and applicable legal or ethical obligations. Potential human-rights harms are best managed through recurring stakeholder engagement in risk treatment because affected people may reveal impacts that technical metrics or internal policy mapping miss. Ongoing participation supports identification, escalation, and remediation of evolving harms. This makes option C, Engaging stakeholders in recurring risk treatment processes, the strongest answer. The other choices describe narrower technical, operational, performance, or administrative considerations and do not address the primary risk-management objective in the scenario as directly. A risk practitioner should select the response that most effectively reduces the stated exposure while preserving appropriate oversight, traceability, and alignment with organizational risk tolerance and business requirements.