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 assign risk levels using consistent, reasoned criteria. 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. This course uses a practical risk-mapping method. The Slovak Government Office’s departmental methodology has its own public-sector context and is not a universal duty for every private business. Adapt the matrix to activities, legal requirements and organisational evidence.

Likelihood and impact help grade risks. Define levels to avoid purely intuitive assessments. Impact may include financial, legal, operational and trust consequences. Distinguish risk before controls from risk after considering effective controls. A merely planned measure must not reduce the current assessment.

Apply the following rule: At least one reporting method must be continuously accessible. Under section 10(2), an external person may receive and acknowledge reports; examination may be outsourced under the stated conditions for a non-public employer with fewer than 250 employees. An internal responsible person remains necessary. A section 12 application to suspend an employment act has a 15-day deadline from learning of it; this remedy differs from formal protected status. Portuguese RGPC is not Slovak law. Prevention methods are recommendations unless a specific applicable duty is identified.

2. Practical Implementation & Procedure

Adopt an understandable scale and explain criteria. This exercise uses three levels only as an example. Examine exposure, opportunities and existing controls. Record reasons and uncertainties. Compare similar processes. No known incidents does not mean zero likelihood, particularly where detection is weak. 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 department rates favouritism risk low because it has received no reports. Yet no independent review or channel communication exists. The team revises its reasoning. Few reports may reflect poor detection rather than absence of risk. 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: Can an unimplemented measure justify reducing the current risk rating? 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.

It should not be treated as an effective existing control. It can support a clearly identified forecast of future risk. Current assessment must reflect existing measures and evidence of their operation.

One mistake to avoid is: assigning numbers without criteria or presenting the teaching matrix as a legal requirement.

Now apply the national rule to a second decision. The team presents all preventive tools as mandatory for every organisation. How should it revise the explanation?

Separate Slovak legal duties, their scope and recommended practice. Public procurement and the departmental anti-corruption methodology have their own applicability. Portuguese RGPC is not automatically transferred. For recommendations state the risk, owner and effectiveness evidence; for a claimed duty identify the applicable legal basis.