Pass Your Isaca CISM Exam Easy!

Cross-service dependencies make independent promises insufficient. That action would align DR recovery sequencing with business priorities; it does not address the case's priority to maintain transaction integrity during manual continuity.

Unified governance avoids contradictory decisions across response streams. This would help unify continuity and disaster recovery decisions; the scenario instead requires a decision to maintain transaction integrity during manual continuity.

Disaster recovery is a technology capability within broader business continuity. That action would coordinate technology restore with business restart; it does not address the case's priority to maintain transaction integrity during manual continuity.

Technical competency must be paired with governance knowledge for safe containment. That action would train on high-impact response approvals; it does not address the case's priority to avoid single-person response dependency.

Reliable incident records require practiced behavior under time pressure. It is primarily relevant when the need is to improve incident documentation skills, rather than to avoid single-person response dependency.

Geographic response effectiveness depends on understanding jurisdictional coordination. That action would train global incident response handoffs; it does not address the case's priority to avoid single-person response dependency.

Enterprise incidents cross technology and business boundaries. That action would include business stakeholders in incident planning; it does not address the case's priority to establish enterprise incident response authority.

Clear triggers prevent delay and inconsistent mobilization during emerging incidents. It is primarily relevant when the need is to establish incident activation criteria, rather than to establish enterprise incident response authority.

Responders must be able to retrieve procedures during infrastructure disruption. This would help ensure response plans remain available during outages; the scenario instead requires a decision to establish enterprise incident response authority.

Continuity priorities follow enterprise consequences of disruption. It is primarily relevant when the need is to set recovery priorities from business impact, rather than to determine tolerable disruption with business owners.

Priorities and impacts shift with organizational structure and operations. This would help maintain current business impact assumptions; the scenario instead requires a decision to determine tolerable disruption with business owners.

Process recovery cannot succeed if supporting services remain unavailable. That action would include dependencies in business impact analysis; it does not address the case's priority to determine tolerable disruption with business owners.

Disaster recovery is a technology capability within broader business continuity. That action would coordinate technology restore with business restart; it does not address the case's priority to unify continuity and disaster recovery decisions.

Workarounds need exit and data integrity measures when primary systems return. This would help maintain transaction integrity during manual continuity; the scenario instead requires a decision to unify continuity and disaster recovery decisions.

Cross-service dependencies make independent promises insufficient. That action would align DR recovery sequencing with business priorities; it does not address the case's priority to unify continuity and disaster recovery decisions.

Credible investigation relies on evidence integrity and accountable handling. That action would prepare defensible evidence access procedures; it does not address the case's priority to prevent loss of short-lived incident evidence.

Consistent time references support reliable event sequence reconstruction. It is primarily relevant when the need is to prepare accurate forensic event chronology, rather than to prevent loss of short-lived incident evidence.

Recorded handling reduces challenges to evidence integrity and accountability. That action would maintain forensic chain of custody; it does not address the case's priority to prevent loss of short-lived incident evidence.

Procedures must be executable under real crisis conditions. That action would verify business continuity communications readiness; it does not address the case's priority to maintain workforce continuity during regional crisis.

Alternate operations require coordination with parties that enable the business process. It is primarily relevant when the need is to coordinate supplier continuity during relocation, rather than to maintain workforce continuity during regional crisis.

Business continuity sustains essential outcomes even when normal technology is unavailable. This would help maintain business operations during system outage; the scenario instead requires a decision to maintain workforce continuity during regional crisis.

Correct restore sequencing prevents systems from starting before required services. It is primarily relevant when the need is to sequence application recovery after disaster, rather than to ensure independent disaster recovery activation.

Production recovery assurance needs representative load and service dependencies. This would help validate disaster recovery scalability; the scenario instead requires a decision to ensure independent disaster recovery activation.

Redundancy fails if the same incident disables both locations. That action would avoid common-mode disaster recovery failure; it does not address the case's priority to ensure independent disaster recovery activation.

New obligations must translate into operational triggers, not remain policy commentary. That action would update response readiness for regulatory change; it does not address the case's priority to meet after-hours contractual incident deadlines.

Different breach duties need predefined evaluation criteria. This would help prepare compliant health-data notification decisions; the scenario instead requires a decision to meet after-hours contractual incident deadlines.

Accurate, authorized reporting reduces misleading statements while meeting notice duties. That action would communicate verified incident facts under deadlines; it does not address the case's priority to meet after-hours contractual incident deadlines.

Coordinated response assumptions should be tested with all necessary participants. That action would rehearse supplier-customer incident handoffs; it does not address the case's priority to mitigate supplier reporting-delay risk.

Business continuity depends on supplier-enabled operations, not just internal systems. It is primarily relevant when the need is to maintain processes during partner outage, rather than to mitigate supplier reporting-delay risk.

Outsourced services require coordinated response duties before an actual breach. That action would establish supplier incident cooperation; it does not address the case's priority to mitigate supplier reporting-delay risk.

External dependency failures do not eliminate obligations to act diligently. That action would handle unavailable regulatory notification channels; it does not address the case's priority to plan supplier capacity during correlated cyber events.

Response cannot depend solely on infrastructure affected by the disaster. It is primarily relevant when the need is to manage telecom dependency in crisis response, rather than to plan supplier capacity during correlated cyber events.

Crisis urgency does not remove cross-organization data protection obligations. This would help enable lawful incident evidence sharing; the scenario instead requires a decision to plan supplier capacity during correlated cyber events.