Input: a treatment plan proving ineffective, residual risk set to stay unacceptable after completion. Action: rework the plan and carry it out so the residual risk becomes acceptable. Trigger: a decision that the plan must be reworked. Output: a revised plan and its implementation. Nonconformities on plan effectiveness can arise from internal or external audit or from monitoring and indicators, and the revision reflects the outcomes of treatment, progressive implementation (a control as specified, designed and built), and difficulties met in implementing controls (technical, financial, or clashes with internal or external considerations such as privacy). Even acceptable residual risk can be undermined where users reject or bypass controls they find awkward, overly complex or slow, and the effectiveness of the revised plan is reviewed.
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.