Quick Answer
The answer is to request evidence of the fix and perform a sample test of recent transactions. This is correct because validating a control fix requires independent verification that the underlying system glitch has been resolved, not merely accepting the control owner’s assurance. In risk management, residual risk from automated controls can persist if the fix is not objectively confirmed through evidence like change logs and through transaction testing that demonstrates the control now operates as intended. On the CRISC exam, this scenario tests your understanding of the validation phase in the risk response process, where a common trap is to rely solely on verbal or written claims from the control owner. A key memory tip is “trust but verify”—always pair evidence with a sample test to close the loop on control effectiveness.
This CRISC practice question tests your understanding of risk and control monitoring and reporting. Read the scenario carefully and evaluate each option against the stated constraints before committing to an answer. After answering, compare your reasoning against the explanation and wrong-answer breakdown below. Once you have made your selection, read the full explanation to reinforce the concept and understand why each distractor is designed to mislead on exam day.
A company has a control that automatically rejects transactions over $10,000. During a review, it is found that 2% of transactions over $10,000 were approved due to a system glitch. The control owner says the glitch has been fixed. What should the risk practitioner do next?
Accept the control owner's assurance and close the finding.
Why wrong: Independent verification is needed.
Request evidence of the fix and perform a sample test of recent transactions.
Ensures the issue is resolved.
Recommend a compensating control until the fix is confirmed.
Why wrong: Should first verify the fix.
Report the issue to the audit committee.
Why wrong: Escalation without verification may be premature.
Answer choices
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
Request evidence of the fix and perform a sample test of recent transactions.
Option B is correct because the risk practitioner must independently verify that the system glitch has been resolved before closing the finding. Requesting evidence of the fix (e.g., change logs, patch notes) and performing a sample test of recent transactions provides objective assurance that the control is now operating effectively. This aligns with the CRISC principle that control owner assurances alone are insufficient without validation, especially for automated controls where residual risk from the glitch could persist.
Key principle: Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Answer analysis
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
Accept the control owner's assurance and close the finding.
Why it's wrong here
Independent verification is needed.
Request evidence of the fix and perform a sample test of recent transactions.
Why this is correct
Ensures the issue is resolved.
Related concept
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
Recommend a compensating control until the fix is confirmed.
Why it's wrong here
Should first verify the fix.
Report the issue to the audit committee.
Why it's wrong here
Escalation without verification may be premature.
Common exam traps
The trap here is that candidates assume a control owner's assurance is sufficient (Option A) or that a compensating control is always needed (Option C), but CRISC emphasizes independent verification of control fixes before closure.
Detailed technical explanation
In automated transaction controls, a system glitch might involve a misconfigured rule in the ERP system (e.g., SAP's pricing procedure or Oracle's approval workflow) where the threshold check is bypassed due to a logic error or database trigger failure. The risk practitioner should request the specific change request (CR) or incident ticket showing the fix, then run a SQL query or use audit logs to sample transactions post-fix, ensuring the control now correctly blocks or flags transactions over $10,000. A real-world scenario: a bank's AML system had a glitch where transactions over $10,000 were approved due to a missing 'AND' condition in the rule engine; the fix required recompiling the rule set and testing with edge cases.
Key takeaway
Answer the scenario, not the keyword: identify the specific constraint before choosing the most familiar-sounding option.
Real-world example
A small business has 20 workstations on the 192.168.1.0/24 network and one public IP from its ISP. The router uses PAT (NAT overload) so all 20 devices share one public address using different source ports. NAT questions test whether you understand the four address terms and which direction each translation applies.
What to study next
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting — study guide chapter
Learn the concepts, then practise the questions
Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting practice questions
Targeted practice on this topic area only
All CRISC questions
500 questions across all exam domains
Certified in Risk and Information Systems Control CRISC study guide
Full concept coverage aligned to exam objectives
CRISC practice test guide
How to use practice tests most effectively before exam day
Related practice questions
Use these pages to review the topic behind this question. This is how one missed question becomes focused revision.
Practise CRISC questions linked to IT Risk Identification.
Practise CRISC questions linked to Risk Response and Mitigation.
Practise CRISC questions linked to Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting.
Practise CRISC questions linked to IT Risk Assessment.
Practise CRISC questions linked to CRISC fundamentals.
Practise CRISC questions linked to CRISC scenario.
Practise CRISC questions linked to CRISC troubleshooting.
Practice this exam
Short sessions build daily habit. Longer sessions build exam-day stamina. Try a timed session to simulate real conditions.
FAQ
Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting — This question tests Risk and Control Monitoring and Reporting — Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer..
The correct answer is: Request evidence of the fix and perform a sample test of recent transactions. — Option B is correct because the risk practitioner must independently verify that the system glitch has been resolved before closing the finding. Requesting evidence of the fix (e.g., change logs, patch notes) and performing a sample test of recent transactions provides objective assurance that the control is now operating effectively. This aligns with the CRISC principle that control owner assurances alone are insufficient without validation, especially for automated controls where residual risk from the glitch could persist.
Identify which exam domain this question belongs to, review the core concept, then practise similar questions from the same domain.
Read the scenario before looking for a memorised answer.
About these practice questions
Courseiva creates original exam-style practice questions with explanations and wrong-answer analysis. It does not publish real exam questions, exam dumps, or protected exam content. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
Last reviewed: Jun 11, 2026
This CRISC practice question is part of Courseiva's free ISACA certification practice question bank. Courseiva provides original exam-style practice questions with explanations, topic-based practice, mock exams, readiness tracking, and study analytics to help learners prepare for the CRISC exam.
Question Discussion
Share a tip, memory trick, or ask about the reasoning behind this question. Do not post real exam questions, leaked content, braindumps, or copyrighted exam material. Comments are moderated and may be removed without notice.
Sign in to join the discussion.