CRISC Risk Response and Reporting Practice Question
During a vendor risk assessment, a prospective vendor for critical services cannot provide a SOC 2 Type II report. According to the organization's vendor risk appetite, which action should be taken?
⚠ Common exam trap
A common mix-up: candidates assume 'additional monitoring' (Option D) is a valid compensating control, but the CRISC exam emphasizes that for critical services, independent assurance (like SOC 2) is a non-negotiable baseline, and monitoring is a detective control, not a preventive or directive control that replaces the need for formal risk acceptance.
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
✓
Reject the vendor or request a formal risk acceptance
A SOC 2 Type II report provides independent assurance over a service organization's controls over a period of time. When a prospective vendor for critical services cannot provide this report, and the organization's risk appetite is defined, the appropriate action is to reject the vendor or require a formal risk acceptance from the risk owner. This ensures that any deviation from the required control evidence is explicitly acknowledged and approved, rather than bypassing the requirement.
Answer analysis
Option-by-option breakdown
For each option: why learners choose it and why it is or isn't the right answer here.
- ✗
Lower the vendor's tier to reduce requirements
Why it's wrong here
Re-tiering to reduce requirements is circular: the vendor's criticality derives from the service it delivers, not from the evidence it supplies, so the risk appetite for critical services still applies. Re-tiering suits vendors whose business impact genuinely falls below the critical threshold.
- ✗
Accept the vendor's self-assessment instead
Why it's wrong here
A self-assessment is vendor-supplied assertion with no independent attestation, so it cannot evidence control effectiveness for critical services and fails the risk appetite. It is tempting because self-assessments are cheap and quick for low-tier, non-critical vendors where no assurance report is warranted.
- ✓
Reject the vendor or request a formal risk acceptance
Why this is correct
Without a SOC 2 Type II report, assurance over the vendor's control operating effectiveness is absent, breaching the stated risk appetite for critical services. Rejecting the vendor or escalating to formal risk acceptance satisfies that constraint, ensuring residual risk is consciously owned rather than silently absorbed.
- ✗
Onboard the vendor with additional monitoring
Why it's wrong here
Additional monitoring detects issues after onboarding but does not obtain the missing independent assurance over control design and operation, so the critical-service risk appetite is unmet. Monitoring is the right compensating control for lower-tier vendors where residual risk is already accepted.
Go deeper
Related to this question
About these practice questions
Courseiva writes every CRISC question from scratch — 1,062 in total, each with an explanation and a wrong-answer breakdown. None are copied from real exams or 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.