CCR015
Eliminate risk causes at efficient intervention points rather than layering controls until cost exceeds mitigated exposure.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction CCR015 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Risk Reduction vs Cost
Business ContextAdditional controls, monitoring, insurance, redundancy, specialist resources, and assurance activities can reduce risk, but each intervention consumes financial or operational resources. Attempting to eliminate every exposure can produce control costs disproportionate to the consequences being prevented.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionTarget the mechanisms creating exposure rather than increasing protection uniformly. Controls should eliminate causes, reduce probability or consequence at efficient intervention points, and use existing system resources before additional layers are introduced.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 2 – Taking Out removes unnecessary risk-generating activities or redundant controls.
Principle 3 – Local Quality concentrates resources where risk reduction has the greatest value.
Principle 22 – Blessing in Disguise uses existing operational information, exceptions, and failures as inputs for preventive risk reduction.
Expected Outcome
Greater risk reduction
Lower control cost
Better resource allocation
Reduced overcontrol
Decision Indicators
Control cost exceeds the exposure being mitigated.
Every risk reduction initiative requires additional resources.
Low-consequence risks receive expensive preventive controls.
Control portfolios grow without corresponding reductions in residual risk.
Risk treatment focuses on adding protection rather than removing causes.