The risk practitioner’s primary focus when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk should be the level of residual risk, because this indicates the amount and type of risk that remains after applying the controls, and whether it is acceptable or not. Residual risk is the risk that is left over after the risk responseactions have been taken, such as implementing or improving controls. Controls are the measures or actions that are designed and performed to reduce the likelihood and/or impact of a risk event, or to exploit the opportunities that a risk event may create. The adequacy of controls to mitigate risk depends on how well they address the root causes or sources of the risk, and how effectively and efficiently they reduce the risk exposure and value. The level of residual risk reflects the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it shows the gap between the inherent risk and the actual risk, and whether it is within the organization’s risk appetite and tolerance. The risk practitioner should focus on the level of residual risk when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk, as it helps to evaluate and compare the benefits and costs of the controls, and to decide on the best risk response strategy, such as accepting, avoiding, transferring, or further reducing the risk. The other options are less important or relevant to focus on when determining whether controls are adequate to mitigate risk. Sensitivity analysis is a technique that measures how the risk value changes when one or more input variables are changed, such as the probability, impact, or control effectiveness. Sensitivity analysis can help to identify and prioritize the most influential or critical variables that affect the risk value, and to test the robustness or reliability of the risk assessment. However, sensitivity analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Cost-benefit analysis is a technique that compares the expected benefits and costs of a control or a risk response action, and determines whether it is worthwhile or not. Cost-benefit analysis can help to justify and optimize the investment or resource allocation for the control or the risk response action, and to ensure that it is aligned with the organization’s objectives and value. However, cost-benefit analysis does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the risk acceptance criteria. Risk appetite is the amount and type of risk that an organization is willing to accept in pursuit of its objectives. Risk appetite can help to define and communicate the organization’s risk preferences and boundaries, and to guide the risk decision-making and behavior. However, risk appetite does not directly indicate the adequacy of controls to mitigate risk, as it does not measure the level of residual risk or the actual risk performance. References = Risk IT Framework, ISACA, 2022, p. 131