MAINSYSTEMS 
combine process, risk, assessment and measures in a coherent 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. The Plan for the Prevention of Corruption and Related Offences, abbreviated as PPR, must reflect the entity's actual activities. The scales and examples are teaching choices, not legally imposed matrices. The aim is to connect processes, risks, measures and owners in a verifiable way.
The matrix must show reasoning from activity to control. A row without an owner or measure is operationally incomplete. Similar risks need compatible criteria across rows. The PPR also includes context and overall accountability. It is more than an isolated spreadsheet.
National rule: The PPR identifies the person with overall responsibility for its implementation, control and review, who may be the RCN. The risk matrix should form part of a coherent plan with measures and implementation monitoring. A spreadsheet alone does not replace the entire instrument.
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 procurement matrix identifies favouritism but lists backups as its control. Review finds no connection between risk and control. The team adds controls over interests, criteria and decision review, keeping backups in their appropriate context. 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: How can the connection between a measure and a risk be checked quickly? 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.
Ask how it reduces the likelihood or impact of the described event. Without a concrete explanation, the measure may be misplaced or inadequate. The matrix should make this connection explicit.
One mistake to avoid is: filling cells to finish the document without testing the link between risk and measure.
Which document, responsible person and evidence from your entity demonstrate application of this rule?
Confirm the scope and applicable source. Record the decision, who can approve it and the evidence required. Application in this lesson should support the following objective: combine process, risk, assessment and measures in a coherent matrix Distinguish the legal duty from the organisational method chosen by the entity.