A complete risk matrix

1. Regulatory Concept & Core Standards

In this video we will consolidate a skill: combine process, risk, assessment and measures in a coherent matrix. Use the case to test what you would do in a similar situation. We will explain the proposed response step by step so that you can understand each choice and recognise when more information would be needed. A matrix organises possible events and suitable controls. The scales and methods in this course are organisational examples, not a single statutory method for every company. The Ministry of Finance management-control standards apply within their public-sector scope.

The matrix must show the reasoning from activity to control. A row without an owner or measure is operationally incomplete. Consistency matters across rows. Similar risks need compatible criteria. The risk plan also includes context and overall accountability rather than an isolated spreadsheet.

Apply the following rule: Article 3 covers specified areas including corruption, public procurement, data protection and the financial interests of the state. Employment law is not a separate general category. Article 3(2) allows certain lawful internal rules and ethical standards within the internal procedure, without applying Chapters 4 and 5. Article 4 includes work-related contexts before and after a relationship. Protection requires Article 6 conditions and the appropriate reporting route.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Complete a row with process, cause, event, consequence, likelihood, impact, level and measures. Add owners and monitoring evidence. Validate with the implementing department and plan coordinator. Check activity coverage and required approval. Prepare dissemination and communication under the entity's regime, distinguishing legal requirements from internal choices. 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

A matrix identifies supplier favouritism but lists daily document backups as the control. The team adds interest declarations and independent review, keeping backups for their proper purpose. 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: Are backups sufficient to control impartiality? 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. They may preserve material but do not resolve an interested person’s influence. The control must address the specific risk.

One mistake to avoid is: filling cells to finish the document without testing the link between risk and measure.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The system automatically marks a report as protected because it contains the word corruption. What was not checked?

Read the facts and apply Articles 3, 4 and 6. A form category establishes neither statutory scope nor the reporting person’s reasonable grounds. If another procedure applies, identify it and limit sharing to necessary information. A broader internal policy does not automatically extend every statutory reporting route.