According to the CRISC Review Manual, performing the assessment as it would normally be done is the best approach when a risk practitioner has been asked by a business unit manager for special consideration during a risk assessment of a system, because it ensures that the risk practitioner maintains their objectivity, integrity, and professionalism. The risk practitioner should not compromise the quality or accuracy of the risk assessment, regardless of any external pressure or influence. The risk practitioner should follow the established risk assessment methodology and standards, and report the risk results and recommendations based on the facts and evidence. The other options are not the best approaches, because they may affect the credibility or reliability of the risk assessment. Conducting an abbreviated version of the assessment may result in incomplete or insufficient risk information, which may lead to poor riskdecisions or actions. Reporting the business unit manager for a possible ethics violation may escalate the situation or create a conflict of interest, which may hinder the risk assessment process or outcome. Recommending an internal auditor perform the review may transfer the responsibility or accountability of the risk practitioner, which may undermine their role or authority. References = CRISC Review Manual, 7th Edition, Chapter 2, Section 2.2.1, page 74.