CCR031
Map each control to a distinct risk function and remove only those proven redundant, then monitor residual coverage continuously.
CyberTRIZ analysis · Audit contradiction CCR031 · one of 8,235 worked contradictions published by CyberTRIZ.AI
Regulations
Control Rationalization vs Assurance Confidence
Business ContextControl rationalization can reduce duplication, administrative burden, and process complexity. Removing controls can nevertheless concern management, auditors, regulators, or boards when multiple mechanisms have historically been interpreted as stronger protection.
Audit TRIZ ResolutionEvaluate controls according to risk function rather than control count. Redundant controls can be removed when remaining mechanisms demonstrably provide sufficient preventive, detective, or corrective protection and their performance can be monitored.
Applicable TRIZ Principles
Principle 2 – Taking Out removes controls that do not provide distinct risk reduction.
Principle 5 – Merging consolidates overlapping control functions.
Principle 23 – Feedback monitors residual control performance after rationalization.
Expected Outcome
Fewer redundant controls
Preserved assurance confidence
Lower control cost
Simpler control environments
Decision Indicators
Control effectiveness is associated primarily with the number of controls.
Multiple controls perform substantially identical functions.
Teams resist removing controls despite evidence of redundancy.
Rationalization occurs without evaluating residual protection.
Control inventories grow continuously after incidents or findings.