Risk management reports convey aggregated data accurately and precisely so that the board and senior management can rely on them; reports are reconciled and validated. At a minimum the bank maintains defined requirements and processes to reconcile reports to risk data; automated and manual edit and reasonableness checks with an inventory of validation rules for quantitative information that explains the conventions behind the relationships checked; and integrated procedures to identify, report and explain data errors or integrity weaknesses through exception reports. Approximations such as model results, scenarios and stress tests follow the reporting principles, with reliability expectations set for them and for the data driving them. Senior management sets accuracy and precision requirements for regular and stress reporting, including critical positions and exposures, reflecting the criticality of the decisions; accuracy requirements are treated like accounting materiality with a supportable rationale, and precision requirements rest on validation, testing or reconciliation results.
This control maps to 2 controls across 2 other frameworks. If you already hold one of them, the evidence you collected for it is the starting point here rather than new work.
Every mapping shown was judged rather than inferred from wording similarity, and the ones that failed review are published too. See the coverage reports and what was rejected.
The graph holds this control, the 2 it maps to, and the evidence behind each claim, over MCP and REST.