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. 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.

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: The Act covers reporting crime and other anti-social activity in an employment or analogous relationship. Section 2 includes relevant pre-contractual and ended relationships. Distinguish a report, a qualified report of serious anti-social activity and formal protected-whistleblower status. Status under section 4 or 6 does not arise automatically when a form is sent. Good faith is assessed against information available when reporting.

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.

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?

Assess facts, the relationship, good faith and statutory conditions. The form label does not determine a qualified report or formal protected status. Receiving information, examining it and granting specific protection are different tasks. Clarify missing facts securely and only as needed.