ISO/IEC 27005 FAQ Risk Acceptance

Start with one decision record: scope, required inputs, owner, evidence location, and review condition. Then route the result to treatment or acceptance gates.

For risk work, separate the model from the result: risk criteria, scenario assumptions, likelihood rationale, impact rationale, existing controls, treatment choice, residual risk, and acceptance authority. This keeps the answer useful in audits, customer reviews, incidents, supplier reviews, and management review.

The evidence should show the process operating. For this artifact, the strongest record usually includes risk criteria, scenarios, likelihood and impact rationale, treatment decisions, residual-risk approvals, and review records.

Avoid evidence that only repeats a requirement. A reviewer should be able to see the actual owner, date, system, supplier, AI system, service, incident, risk, or control sample behind the answer.

The person who can fund, operate, and correct the process should own the decision; governance should review consistency and exceptions.

For high-impact changes, approval should include the teams affected by the evidence: security, privacy, resilience, supplier management, AI governance, legal, risk, or business service owners as relevant.

Review it at planned intervals and whenever the underlying scope, service, supplier, control, risk, AI system, personal data flow, incident process, or customer commitment changes.

A stale record is worse than a short record. If the facts change, update the evidence and mark what changed so the next reviewer can trust the page.