hardMultiple Choice
CRISC Practice Question: A risk practitioner is asked to reduce the number…
A risk practitioner is asked to reduce the number of KRIs tracked from 50 to 20. Which KRIs should be prioritized for removal?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates confuse operational efficiency (manual collection) or statistical behavior (low threshold, high volatility) with the fundamental requirement that every KRI must be directly traceable to a specific risk in the risk register.
Answer choices
Why each option matters
Answer the question above first, then reveal the full breakdown to understand why each option is right or wrong.
Correct answer & explanation
✓
KRIs that are not directly mapped to any risk in the risk register
KRIs that are not directly mapped to any risk in the risk register provide no actionable insight for risk monitoring or decision-making. Removing them reduces noise and ensures the remaining 20 KRIs are all linked to specific risks, which is essential for effective risk-based reporting and resource allocation.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
KRIs that have been consistently below threshold for two years
Why it's wrong here
A KRI consistently below threshold for two years may still be a valid indicator whose threshold needs recalibrating, so removal discards monitoring coverage rather than eliminating redundancy. It is tempting because sustained pass results look like low value, but KRIs are removed when they no longer map to a risk, not merely when they keep passing.
- ✓
KRIs that are not directly mapped to any risk in the risk register
Why this is correct
KRIs lacking a risk-register mapping measure nothing the organisation has agreed to manage, so they consume tracking effort without informing risk decisions. Removing them first satisfies the stem's constraint of cutting 50 KRIs to 20 while preserving indicators tied to registered risks, keeping the remaining set aligned to actual exposure.
- ✗
KRIs that require manual data collection
Why it's wrong here
Manual collection raises effort, but a manually gathered KRI may still measure a critical risk, so effort alone does not justify removal. It is tempting because automation reduces workload, yet prioritisation should target KRIs with no decision value or no link to key risks, regardless of collection method.
- ✗
KRIs that have high volatility
Why it's wrong here
High volatility indicates a KRI is sensitive to changing risk conditions, which is desirable for early warning, so removing these discards useful signal. Volatility is tempting to cut because fluctuating values look noisy, but the removal criterion should be whether a KRI drives decisions, not how much it moves.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
This CRISC question is part of Courseiva's 1,062-question bank — original exam-style content with full explanations and wrong-answer analysis, never real exam questions or exam dumps. Learn why practice questions differ from exam dumps →
JA
Written by Johnson Ajibi, MSc IT Security
Senior Network & Security Engineer · founder of Courseiva
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.