Assessing likelihood and impact

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

This video's topic is assessing likelihood and impact. By the end, you should be able to use a scale to support reasoned assessment. We will connect the information available, the criterion guiding the decision and the action that must be recorded. Follow the case and compare your answer with the proposed response. The matrix connects process, possible breach, control and owner. A number is not an official legal decision. Regulation 630 addressees have a risk-assessment duty, while the illustrated table is a recommended method to adapt to actual work.

An internal scale supports comparison, not precise prediction or legal classification. Impact may concern money, safety and trust. Assess real controls and uncertainty. High risk does not establish a previous breach.

Apply the following rule: Cabinet Regulation 630 governs internal corruption and conflict-of-interest controls in public institutions and does not automatically apply to every private company. It includes risk, ethics, training and monitoring requirements. Course matrices and examples are methods unless a specific rule is identified. Portuguese RGPC is not Latvian law.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Define the scale beforehand. Justify likelihood and impact. Distinguish exposure before and after controls and identify assessor and uncertainty. Check consistent meanings across departments. Before moving on, turn this procedure into a sequence you could explain to a colleague. Identify the first check, the action that depends on its outcome and the record that allows the decision to be reconstructed. Follow the sequence on screen and identify the point where an error would change the result.

3. Case Study & Compliance Action

Two departments score one risk differently because high means different things. The team agrees criteria and reassesses. Now read the case carefully. Separate established facts from information you would still need to confirm. Do not add motives or events that have not been described. This distinction matters when choosing a response proportionate to the information available.

The exercise is as follows: Does the highest number always provide the most accurate result? Choose an answer and write one sentence explaining it. During the pause, compare your choice with the criteria we have just considered. Also think about the material you would retain to explain the decision later.

No. Shared criteria and reasons matter. Numerical precision can conceal evidence gaps and inconsistent assumptions.

One mistake to avoid is: treating a score as an objective fact.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team calls every risk-management method compulsory for every company. How should the claim be corrected?

Distinguish Regulation 630 public-institution duties from recommended private practice. Do not confuse its risk and measure review with a Portuguese RGPC timetable. Identify each legal source and addressee; for a chosen method identify purpose, owner and operational evidence.